The Payday Loan Debate

Payday loans are typically used for a quick form of cash in a emergency situation where you need to pay an unpaid or unexpected bill. These loans are recommended to be paid off on your next payday, hence the name. However, most liberals believe that consumers and businesses should not have the freedom to reach an agreement without the government getting involved which is why in 13 states payday loans are still illegal. For that small handful of states the liberals would much rather consumers not make their payments and possibly lose their cars or maybe even their house. This is why so many consumers within those states are now looking to online payday loans to get the money they need fast.

If you reside in one of the following states then the government believes they know what is best for you and you are completely incapable of making an educated decision on your own regarding what's best for your family.

1. Arkansas
2. Arizona
3. Connecticut
4. Georgia
5. Kentucky
6. Maryland
7. Massachusetts
8. New Jersey
9. New York
10. North Carolina
11. Pennsylvania
12. Vermont
13. West Virginia

Although payday loans typically involve interest rates that can range from 100% - 1,000% the majority of these loans do get paid back as soon as the consumer gets paid exactly like the name suggests. Therefore, the damage done from the interest rate charged is minimal. However, this does not stop liberals from capping interest rates on these loans and therefore eliminating payday loans completely in 13 states.

When a consumer needs a loan in an emergency situation the first place most consumers will go to is their bank. However, for those consumers with bad credit a bank may be unable to lend any money. The only other option to get some quick money is typically through payday loans. When the loan is taken out the borrower provides their banking information so that the loan will be repaid through electronic payment. In return the borrower gets the money they are in need of on the spot. The borrower can decide to repay the entire loan on their next payday (the smart choice) or defer their payment to a later date which is typically not a good idea due to the high interest rates.

In the end, as long as a company is being fully transparent with the rate and fee details this transaction should be allowed to happen. When two parties form an agreement that is in no way harming anyone else they should have the freedom to carry out that agreement without the government denying them their freedom to do so. The problem here is that the egotistical liberals think they know what is best for each American family. The next time you need to make an important decision for your family don't talk it over with your family because the omnipotent liberals are going to make that decision for you. Just remember, YOU KNOW NOTHING!

Live & Let Live.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act

Monday night the Senate took a vote that will more than likely send The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) to congress. However, what congress will do with it is yet to be determined.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act is much like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. We know that the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, national origin, age and disability. ENDA is set to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or sexual identity. Supposidely, the law would not apply to religious organizations, members of the armed forces, or companies with fewer than 15 employees.

The problem with both ENDA and the Civil Rights Act is that while the intention is to help, these laws also take away the freedom of the business owner. No one should force their beliefs upon others whether it be Republican's not allowing gay marriage or gay's forcing business owners to run their business a certain way. When a company first starts off the entrepreneur takes a risk and puts a lot of time and money on the line. The business owner has ownership of his/her company just as an employee has ownership over his/her own self. If a business owner does not want to hire someone who is gay that is their right. It is their company and their building which was accomplished by the risk they took. If someone is not hired by a company then they have the right to work for another company or start their own. Perhaps, they could start a company that only would hire gays. The second issue that is has drawn out this legislation is the claim that gays do not make as much as their colleagues. I have good news regarding wages though. Regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation any employee has the right to quit their job and find another if they feel they are not being paid enough. There should be no entitlements! I'm not sure what has happened to America but when it comes to employment you have to earn what you get.

ENDA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act provide freedom for some while taking it from others. Passing a gay marriage law would be great because while I am not gay, two others who are would not harm me in the least bit. In addition gays should have every right to the same protections and benefits that being legally married allows a non-gay couple. However, ENDA is wrong because it takes away freedom from business owners just like TItle VII of the Civil Rights Act has done. The problem here is not equal rights but rather a group of people who feel they are entitled to something and do not want to work for what they get. If someone who is gay is getting paid less than their colleugues than they can quit. However, if someones skills are truly valuable to a company, whether they are gay or not, their employer will give them the equal pay they are looking for not because they are required to by the government but because that person earned it!

The Unaffordable Care Act

• "73,000 Maryland residents will need to find a new health plan next year, as insurers drop plans that don't meet new federal guidelines"

• "80,000 Louisianians' health insurance policies will be canceled under Affordable Care Act"

• "300,000 to Lose Health Coverage in Florida"

• "500,000 Californians Lose Health Policies"

• "...at least 129 million (68 percent) will not be able to keep their previous health care plan either because they already have lost or will lose that coverage by the end of 2014"

• "Anyone who likes their health plan can keep it."

 

- Barack Obama

 

It appears that Obamacare has finally began to sicken the majority of Americans. My question is how did anyone believe this plan would actually lower health insurance rates to begin with? It is not possible for the government to require health insurance companies to provide additional coverage at a lesser cost. When you go to purchase a vehicle and you want to add splash guards, pin striping and a moon roof you know that the price of the car will not decrease! I'm not sure how the President could have ever thought this could work. The general summary of what is happening now to Americans all over the country is that due to the additional requirements Obamacare has put on health insurance companies rates have gone up to cover those expenses. A recent NBC News report stated,

"George S., 62, of North Carolina, said he was 'prefectly happy' with his plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which also insured his wife for a $228 monthly premium. But this past September, he was surprised to receive a letter saying his policy was no longer available. The 'comparable' plan the insurance company offered him carried a $1,208 monthly premium and a $5,500 deductible."

As if it couldn't get worse the website has never been fully functioning and is still filled with plenty of glitches. After months of planning and $634,320,919 later the website will not allow most users to complete the enrollment process. The few users that do get through end up regretting that they did. In South Carolina an attorney wanted to shop for cheaper insurance through healthcare.gov and later found out that all his personal information had gone to a random guy in North Carolina! The next question you have to ask is how many others have been affected by this glitch? A follow up question could be if this website is having this many problems than could this be a hacker's dream come true?

Between the flawed economics, the broken promises and the broken website there should be no question why we should never involve government in something as important as health care. We now should know that when it comes to the Affordable Care Act the information given to the American public from President Obama has been a lie.

"If you like your doctor you will be able to keep your doctor. Period."

"If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period."

"If you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance. This law will only make itmore secure and more affordable."

Even if America went back to a pre-Obamacare system we would have better and more affordable insurance. However, a true resolution for a more affordable healthcare can not be achieved through government intervention but rather with less government intervention. If competition were allowed across state lines insurance premiums everywhere would go down drastically due to the increased competition among insurance companies. A new idea for lower health insurance doesn't have to be 20,000 pages long or have 11,588,500 words in it. A new plan for lower health insurance is just simply asking our government to eliminate laws that prevent competition. The fact that competition lowers prices is common sense which our current President seems to be lacking.

Top 10 Famous Libertarians

1. Angelina Jolie - Wanted to star in the first "Atlas Shrugged" movie.
2. Chuck Norris - "I would go to congress , I'd line up every member of congress, and I'd have Ron Paul, who I believe is the, probably the, one of the more honest ones there, and I'd say Ron, point out the honest ones." "Ron Paul is the only guy I trust"
3. Drew Carey - "As far as your personal goals are and what you actually want to do with your life, it should never have to do with the government. You should never depend on the government for your retirement, your financial security, for anything. If you do, you're screwed."
4. Clint Eastwood - "I like the Libertarian view, which is to leave everyone alone. You have to believe in total equality. People should be able to be what they want to be and do what they want as long as they're not harming people."
5. Vince Vaughn - Vaughn endorsed Paul’s 2009 book, “End the Fed,” with the following blurb: “Everyone must read this book—Congressmen and college students, Democrats and Republicans—all Americans.”
6. Billie Joe Armstrong (Lead Singer of 'Green Day') - Registered as a Libertarian in the state of California
7. Peter Thiel (Founder/CEO of Paypal) - In 2012, Thiel, along with PayPal co-founder Luke Nosek and Scott Banister, an early adviser and board member, put their support behind the Endorse Liberty Super PAC, alongside Internet advertising veteran Stephen Oskoui and entrepreneur Jeffrey Harmon, who founded Endorse Liberty in November 2011. Collectively Thiel gave $3.9 million to Endorse Liberty, whose purpose was to promote Texas congressman Ron Paul for president in 2012. As of January 31, 2012 (2012-01-31)^[update], Endorse Liberty reported spending about $3.3 million promoting Paul by setting up two YouTube channels, buying ads from Google and Facebook and StumbleUpon, and building a presence on the Web.
8. Willie Nelson - In 2012 Willie Nelson endorsed Libertarian Party Candidate, Gary Johnson.
9. Joe Rogan (Host of 'Fear Factor') - "I support Ron Paul"
10. Jonathan Davis (Lead Singer of 'Korn') - Wants Ron Paul to replace President Obama in the White House.