As if charging people 79.9% interest isn't a strong enough signal to stay away from a company, here are a few more reasons to cut up your Premier Bankcard credit cards:
- Premier Bankcard fired 330 people in Spearfish. Instead of taking responsibility for this business choice, Premier Bankcard execs blame the government for imposing rules that protect consumers.
- Premier Bankcard relies on state government to provide job search and retraining services.
- Premier Bankcard's layoffs cause the federal government to step in with a $379,500 grant to provide similar services.
- In response to the government's generosity, Premier Bankcard sues the federal government to block new credit card regulations that would further curb its predatory lending practices.
- Premier Bankcard didn't just take away 330 jobs. It took away those former workers' First Amendment rights. Premier Bankcard told its former workers that if they speak to the media, they lose their severance pay. Let's be clear: severance pay is the money workers deservedly receive from a company that takes away their jobs. Money you receive only if you keep your mouth shut is hush money. Such threats from Premier Bankcard against the people it has fired should appall all defenders of the Bill of Rights.
If you have a Premier Bankcard, think about whether you want your fees and interest to pay for rotten business practice like that.
So spending our state's millions of dollars to bring in these corporations who come in, take our resources - both intellectually and physically - use them to line their own corporate pockets, then disappear on a whim, leaving those jobs up in the air or poofed out. Yes, this is the kind of economic development I want to be paying for out of our general fund, the fund which helps to fund education and nursing homes. Riiiiight.
Corey - This has to be one of the most misleading and dishonest blog postings of all time. I have to admit, you are sure good at spinning things.
Lorri - Learn a little about economics and business and then come tell me how much we gave them to setup, and how much tax revenue, directly and indirectly, we have received from them since their inception. Now don't stop there, you have to take into account all the taxes their employees pay and how much of that money goes right back into the economy. Also, take into account secondary businesses in advertising/marketing, call centers, data entry and the many other off shoot businesses that sprung up because of this. Throw in a hospital and their indirect economic impact from their growth since that is directly related to premiers growth and you have even more. It's amazing how short sighted people like you truly are. But hey, we should have let some other state take these businesses and let them cash in on the profit. Then, instead of us having one the best healthcare facilities in the nation, NY might have another one.
Dan, funny how when I cite plain facts, supported by links, you cry "dishonest!" and "spin!" Once again, you refute not one fact in the original post and instead play personal attack.
1.Premier Bankcard fired 330 people in Spearfish. Instead of taking responsibility for this business choice, Premier Bankcard execs blame the government for imposing rules that protect consumers.
~This is a direct result of the credit card reform act. You are going to find out how horrible this law is when a few years from now, assuming our economy hasn't totally collapsed, there is going to be a large segment of our population that will need help getting their credit back. Until they have businesses that can base their pricing on risk, it will probably end up with the taxpayers once again subsidizing their credit b/c no private company will. This is like blaming alcohol distributors for having to lay off people during prohibition and then stating it is their own fault. As the beer commercials go....Brilliant!
2.Premier Bankcard relies on state government to provide job search and retraining services.
~ You act like this was a bad thing. Just curious if you know of any businesses in SD that didn't contact the unemployment office to have an official their to help people get on the path to finding a new job? This is a very common practice and it is unfair for you to villify them b/c of this. In fact, I know people who were laid off from what you would consider a more reputable employer who simply got a phone number to call. I guess this office should be removed altogether as businesses should do it already.
3.Premier Bankcard’s layoffs cause the federal government to step in with a $379,500 grant to provide similar services.
~ Really? They had to apply for that grant? It wasn't just them seeing an oppurtunity to get more funds for their budget? Does this not help other employees other than those from Premier? The article makes it sound like this is helping everyone across the state, but the Premier employees will be done in time to take advantage. Good Spin on that one as well.
4.In response to the government’s generosity, Premier Bankcard sues the federal government to block new credit card regulations that would further curb its predatory lending practices.
~First you condemn them for having to lay off people, then you condemn them from trying to protect their revenue streams so they don't have to lay people off. You are right, they should just accept it and lay off more people. I would have really liked to see them entirely close up shop and move across the border to Iowa. It would have been great to see even more SD money jump the border.
5.Premier Bankcard didn’t just take away 330 jobs. It took away those former workers’ First Amendment rights. Premier Bankcard told its former workers that if they speak to the media, they lose their severance pay. Let’s be clear: severance pay is the money workers deservedly receive from a company that takes away their jobs. Money you receive only if you keep your mouth shut is hush money. Such threats from Premier Bankcard against the people it has fired should appall all defenders of the Bill of Rights.
~I'm not sure if you understand this, but when you are associated with a business, they can dictate how, where, and what you can say about that business. The supreme court has ruled that these actions can be dictated by an employer since it can have an economic impact on their business. They could have given them nothing, but instead offered them a severence in return. Clauses attached to those are not that uncommon. Next thing, you will be trying to tell everyone a non-compete clause is taking away your rights. Get a clue.
~It is very apparent the lack of understanding you have in the business world. That will be reason enough that you will never be involved in any sort of economic growth in this state or country. I guess your father should have told you about opening your mouth and removing all doubts. Job well done. You are great at spinning.
Also, this isn't wikipedia where blog postings and news articles are fact. Your idea of "fact" is leaving as much out to prove your point. That is called biased spin.
Dan, don't presume to lecture me on what this blog is and what it isn't. And if you are going to continue your insult crusade, it's time for you to put your full name on your comments. Come out, come out, wherever you are, and let us determine for whom you work and why you are so interested in defending the immoral practices of the credit card industry.
I stand by every one of my original statements. Everything I said in the blog post is fact. Premier Bankcard fired people and is suing the government because it doesn't want to give up an immoral and unsustainable business model of lending to people who are bad risks and thus easily preyed upon. Premier wants to continue to make money by usury. Premier is using threats to deny the people it fired their First Amendment rights. Premier Bankcard does not make South Dakota a better place to live any more than legalizing prostitution would.
Regardless of your legalities, I find it appalling that you think that, if you give me money, you can tell me to shut up. You evidently believe that workers owe you not just a day's labor but round-the-clock obedience and silence. Talk about tyranny.
Non-compete clauses also violate free market principles.
You know my name and I could care less if any one else did. I'd say the same thing to their face on main street if they asked me about it. I'm self employed and work for a variety of companies and that is very irrelevant to my beliefs on this subject. It doesn't take a genius to realize that high risks individuals will never get their credit back unless companies can offer products that are comparable in costs to this risk. The only other way we can do it is subsidizing it and passing the risk on to the gov't. Then, it can end up just like the housing collapse. Brilliant indeed.
"Premier Bankcard fired people and is suing the government because it doesn’t want to give up an immoral and unsustainable business model of lending to people who are bad risks and thus easily preyed upon. "
~Premier laid off workers b/c the gov't created an environment that made their business model unsustainable. The gov't doesn't want people with bad credit to pay higher rates. I wonder what would happen if they applied that logic to the insurance industry and those who have horrible driving records. It's so unfair that they pay higher insurance rates because they like to drive drunk.
"Premier wants to continue to make money by usury."
~What you call usury, others call an insurance policy since you are high risk. Giving people with bad credit the same rates as those with good credit is a joke. That isn't fair to the rest of us when rates go up because they now have to spread their losses to those who didn't deserve to pay it.
" Premier is using threats to deny the people it fired their First Amendment rights."
~This is all hearsay and has yet to be proven. I still wouldn't disagree with it if it were proven true. I wouldn't have gave them a severance. I would have told them to go ask Obama for it. He allowed it to happen.
"Premier Bankcard does not make South Dakota a better place to live any more than legalizing prostitution would."
~And that is your opinion based on your morals. Live and let live is what I think. If someone wants to do those things, who are you to say they shouldn't? I love how you can decide where the gov't dictates what we can and can't do.
I guess you were not in support of the forced suspension and resignation of the Huron sheriff then....right? He was there on his own accord so his employer shouldn't have had a say...right? Why do i think you are going to twist that one as well?
Non-compete clauses are needed. Anyone could go in and get inside info from a company and then walk away with that knowledge and put them immediately out of business. Just goes to show that you put no value on intellectual ideas. What if that person was involved in a project that wasn't to be released for a year and they decide to leave and release that same thing? Is that not theft since they stole that idea? They sure didn't come up with it alone.
If First Premier were actually helping people, they would have new customers actually put $250 into the account instead of into charges and then limit the credit account to $250 until it is obvious the customer is able to use a credit card. Then add credit in steps.
First Premier first rips off the poor thus making it even harder for them to be responsible. The protests in favor of these practices ring very hollow.
I have received the mailings from First Premier pushing credit cards. The devil details are in the fine print. The whole setup is deceptive and preys on those without knowledge or ability to comprehend fine print legal sleaze.
Doug - I really wish people could accrue credit by the means of a prepaid debit card. Unfortunately, what gets reported to the credit bureau is up to our great leaders. The other problem with a prepaid debit card is it doesn't prove any ability to pay back debt. You aren't spending someone else's money and to people who have little, that makes a huge difference in their decision making skills. Then again, there are people who still continually write bad checks on a weekly basis even after Reg E was passed. It just amazes me how quick people are to spend money that they don't have. It's rather sad actually.
I don't deny that Premier's fees are crazy, but I believe they need to be when so many people default. They are a tough crowd to serve, and unless the gov't is willing to subsidize their credit restoration, they will never find a private establishment to give them a loan of any type. You can't expect those who have screwed up to not be punished in any sort of way. IMO, bad financial decisions only leads to higher rates and fees and that is just the consequences of your actions. It isn't fair to the rest of us to have our pocketbooks affected once again because you couldn't handle yours. What happened to personal responsibility in this country?
Spearditch is in the business of catering to the dying and the dead. Assisted Living (dying), florists, funeral homes, cemeteries. Convert the former Premier building to a crematory or a gun shop.
Dan, I do not need to write a novel to tell you: You are just plain wrong about Premier Bankcard's immoral business practices.
Premier Bankcard is immoral because they exploit those with bad credit. Premier Bankcard knows they are a high risk and they know these people should not have credit cards.
Premier Bankcard has exploited those with bad credit. Premier Bankcard knows they are a high risk and they know these people should not have credit cards.
Dan, still waiting for you to tell us your name...or you just going to ignore that request?
Unethical business is still wrong. Just because they pay a salary to employees does not make them a god that can not be corrected. Suing someone for making you follow ethical practices is rediculous. In the past bankers were honorable enough citizens that they did not need these laws. When these types of laws have become necessary is a clue that our country is on the decline.
If a business threatens employees to keep hush or they lose their severance pay...well...well...that tells me what I need to know about that business: they are up to no good in their practices or they would not fear the very thing they seek to keep quiet.
Oh, and by the way Dan: This is Guy Gregory from Sioux Falls and I stand behind every word I've posted in regards to Premier Bankcard. See, I'm NOT afraid to stand by what I post on this blogsite or anywhere else for that matter because I only post those things I firmly believe to be the TRUTH.
Well good for all of you guys. Last I checked, a name isn't required to post on these blogs. The fact that you want to know my name only shows that you want to know more about me so you can make it personal. Whether it be screwing with my associates or bad mouthing me around town. I'm not going to give it to you, and if Corey is smart, he won't drop it either. So Corey, keep asking like you don't know who I am just to get your cronies all fired up. I know that is the only reason you are doing it. The truth is still the truth regardless of the source and the fact you guys all get bent out of shape is hilarious. You want to know my name for a reason, and even if I was Barack Obama, you still wouldn't believe me. Guy, your morals aren't mine so don't act like your's are the right ones. and Matt.....you're going to keep waiting a long time.
"Dan, I do not need to write a novel to tell you: You are just plain wrong about Premier Bankcard’s immoral business practices."
Hey Corey, where are your comments about stats, facts and insults? Oh i suppose he is on your side so they are OK with it. I guess I should believe it because "Guy said so" and he uses his name so that makes it fact.
"Premier Bankcard is immoral because they exploit those with bad credit. Premier Bankcard knows they are a high risk and they know these people should not have credit cards."
They don't deserve credit, but I have a feeling the democrats will find that it is a right that can't be denied. So why did we get all those families into homes they couldn't afford? Maybe Timmy Johnson and the banking committee can explain that some more.
"Dan, still waiting for you to tell us your name…or you just going to ignore that request?"
It is a request that is entirely irrlevent to this topic, but if you can prove why it is needed, I'll concede.
"Oh, and by the way Dan: This is Guy Gregory from Sioux Falls and I stand behind every word I’ve posted in regards to Premier Bankcard. See, I’m NOT afraid to stand by what I post on this blogsite or anywhere else for that matter because I only post those things I firmly believe to be the TRUTH"
Stating your name doesn't make anything more/less truthful. I find it hilarious that you think it does.
My guess is Dan Nelson, former Nelson Motors owner, and good friend of Mr. John Thune. Am I right? :)
Come on Mike...you can give me more credit than that. I could run circles around those clowns.
Dan, I just think you are a coward. If you are not willing to put you name behind your comments your a chicken sh*t. Everyone else here is willing to give their name to Corey or provide when they comment. That is the type of blog that Corey has here not making absurd claims and hiding behind anonymity. I have made many claims who I am sure many have thought were absurd but at least I am willing to put my name behind it and not hide like a coward!
Matthew - I respect your opinion, but I'm not going to give you my name simply because for some reason you and a few others here think it matters. Corey knows who I am and that is all that is required of me to post. Call me a coward. I really don't care. I think you are huge moron who couldn't even form an original thought on this topic so you resort to getting at the messenger. Your lack of on-topic posts is more than enough proof. Take interest and debate, and I might give you the time of day and actually tell you my name.
Also, care to point out my absurd claims? Put that ol'noggin to use for a change and quit worrying about who I am and try to discredit my thoughts and ideas.
Dan, If you want to defend a company like premiere bank card I don't think you have any concept of ethical business practices or perhaps you have no soul and simply worship money. Just the fact they could charge over 79% interest on people and then say they are doing a service to help them rebuild their credit is ridiculous beyond belief. Dan since this topic is so near and dear to heart do you know what percentage of people who re-establish their credit fall back into the same practices that got them into situation of bad credit to begin with?
I look forward to you response
Thanks,
Matt ~ They have to charge very high interest rates to deal with those who will default. I compare it to any other service you are attaining where your risk factor sets the rate. To me, it's no different than charging a drunk 10 times the normal rate for car insurance or a smoker a higher rate for health insurance. While most of us have to deal with credit cards that are 15-20%, the high risk people have to deal with cards up to 79%. The problem is soon to become one of access. There won't be ways for people to fix their credit and I have a feeling that will lead to gov't run solutions that are subsidized by the taxpayers. This topic really isn't near and dear to my heart. I just understand how to run a business and make a profit. Without high interest rates, their is no profit. I don't know the recidivism rates and if they are high, then maybe we shouldn't make any service available for them to get that credit back. Where do you stand as far as people being able to fix their credit? Do you believe businesses should be forced to take the risk without charging rates that allow them to survive? Or do you believe that once they have hit that point, they shouldn't be allowed to fix their credit? I guess from your question it sounds as if you don't want these people to have access and I just want to make sure I understand your position. Thanks
First Premier is not offering credit to the credit-unworthy because the want to improve their credit ratings, they do it because they can exploit them. Bleed off excessive fees and then shut down the accounts or jack the interest sky high and thus effectively shut down the accounts.
First Premier apparently mailed their offers all over the country without regard to the credit worthiness of those receiving their offers. They are not taking a risk, those who have good credit and maintain it assume all the risk for First Premier. They end up subsidizing the bad credit.
It is much like cash customers coming to hospitals and getting ripped off at rates double or triple what insurance companies pay. The cash customers end up subsidizing the poor and deadbeats who get all their medical care via the emergency room.
FPB's products are for a niche market. If you need credit - you'll pay for it. They offer it. It makes good business since. It seems to me that too many people are just sorry they didn't think of it first.
Let me rephrase that, Kirsten:
"Premier Kiddie Porn's products are for a niche market. If you need child porn, you'll pay for it. PKP offers it. It makes good business sense. It seems to me that too many people are just sorry they didn't think of it first."
So, what part of the argument am I missing?
I personally don't think that's comparing apples to apples. I've worked in the banking industry for 20+ years and these sub-prime products are a must for some people. Its one of the ways they can rebuild their credit after something goes wrong; if they don't pay thier bills and ruin their credit score, if they lose their job and can't pay bills, if they are in an accident and can't pay bills etc. S#it happens, and the "normal" bank or lender just won't lend to them - they are too high of a credit risk.
You know the story Cory - you're not dumb. I just hope you can see both sides of the story. Some products (legal ones) in a niche market are important to the overall enconomy. Illegal ones (kiddie porn) is not a good comparison.
Or - we can "agree to disagree".
Your comment is reasonable, but I'm not prepared to cede the point. Usury used to be illegal. And while I'm afraid to Google the topic, I'm willing to bet there was a time when possessing pictures of naked children was not illegal. Statute alone does not determine morality.
Per Douglas's comment above, I have a hard time beleiving Premier is simply acting in the best interest of a niche market. Premier wants to make money. It does so in an exploitative fashion, doing something I would not do to a person I really cared about. There are more just ways to get people back on their fiscal feet than usury.
I also reject the Premier Bankcard rationalization that their product is a "must." Why is it necessary that any person be able to access money that person has not yet earned? Loans are nice, but they aren't "musts."
Maybe some people just shouldn't get credit, period. Go into bankruptcy, liquidate assets, start over, work your job, live within your means. Maybe that means you live in a city in an apartment and you ride the bus instead of driving a car. Maybe you get help from your extended family, people who at least have more relationship with you than a desire to exploit your misfortune. You make do with what you have and what you can earn by working month by month rather than buying now and paying later.
If Premier Bankcard's products and similar usurious practices disappeared tomorrow, South Dakota would be a better place.
(A tangential stretch to another post: it's not liberals who are trying to exploit the underclass by fostering permanent dependency. It's Premier Bankcard!)
Cory, I would be interested to hear the defenders of Premier explain to us how they were not engaging in Predatory Loan Practices:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_lending#Abusive_or_unfair_lending_practices
Excerpt:
Unjustified risk-based pricing.
This is the practice of charging more (in the form of higher interest rates and fees) for extending credit to borrowers identified by the lender as posing a greater credit risk. The lending industry argues that risk-based pricing is a legitimate practice; since a greater percentage of loans made to less creditworthy borrowers can be expected to go into default, higher prices are necessary to obtain the same yield on the portfolio as a whole. Some consumer groups argue that higher prices paid by more vulnerable consumers cannot always be justified by increased credit risk.[6]
Single-premium credit insurance.
This is the purchase of insurance which will pay off the loan in case the homebuyer dies. It is more expensive than other forms of insurance because it does not involve any medical checkups, but customers almost always are not shown their choices, because usually the lender is not licensed to sell other forms of insurance. In addition, this insurance is usually financed into the loan which causes the loan to be more expensive, but at the same time encourages people to buy the insurance because they do not have to pay up front.
Failure to present the loan price as negotiable.[6]
Many lenders will negotiate the price structure of the loan with borrowers. In some situations, borrowers can even negotiate an outright reduction in the interest rate or other charges on the loan. Consumer advocates argue that borrowers, especially unsophisticated borrowers, are not aware of their ability to negotiate and might even be under the mistaken impression that the lender is placing the borrower's interests above its own. Thus, many borrowers do not take advantage of their ability to negotiate.[6]
Failure to clearly and accurately disclose terms and conditions, particularly in cases where an unsophisticated borrower is involved.
Mortgage loans are complex transactions involving multiple parties and dozens of pages of legal documents. In the most egregious of predatory cases, lenders or brokers have been not only misled borrowers but also actually altered documents after they have been signed.
Short-term loans with disproportionally high fees, such as payday loans, credit card late fees, checking account overdraft fees, and Tax Refund Anticipation Loans, where the fee paid for advancing the money for a short period of time works out to an annual interest rate significantly in excess of the market rate for high-risk loans. The originators of such loans dispute that the fees are interest.
Servicing agent and securitization abuses.
The mortgage servicing agent is the entity that receives the mortgage payment, maintains the payment records, provides borrowers with account statements, imposes late charges when the payment is late, and pursues delinquent borrowers. A securitization is a financial transaction in which assets, especially debt instruments, are pooled and securities representing interests in the pool are issued. Most loans are subject to being bundled and sold, and the rights to act as servicing agent sold, without the consent of the borrower. A federal statute requires notice to the borrower of a change in servicing agent, but does not protect the borrower from being held delinquent on the note for payments made to the servicing agent who fails to forward the payments to the owner of the note, especially if that servicing agent goes bankrupt, and borrowers who have made all payments on time can find themselves being foreclosed on and becoming unsecured creditors of the servicing agent.[7] Foreclosures can sometimes be conducted without proper notice to the borrower. In some states (see Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 746), there is no defense against eviction, forcing the borrower to move and incur the expense of hiring a lawyer and finding another place to live while litigating the claim of the "new owner" to own the house, especially after it is resold one or more times. When the debtor demands, under the best evidence rule, that the current claimed note owner produce the original note with the debtor's signature on it, the note owner typically is unable or unwilling to do so, and tries to establish his claim with an affidavit that it is the owner, without proving it is the "holder in due course", the traditional standard for a debt claim, and the courts often allow them to do that. In the meantime, the note continues to be traded, its physical whereabouts difficult to discover.[8]
Dan, your attitude is part of the problem along with companies like Premier who take advantage of people's desperation. Yes, they know these people are desperate or they wouldn't provide the credit service to them. Like you, all they see is: PROFIT. That is the BIG problem: GREED OF PROFIT.
Bill: indeed! I would find such answers enlightening as well.
Guy: "take advantage of people's desperation"... hmm, that would be like charging flood victims three times the normal price for sump pumps, wouldn't it? We call that gouging, don't we?
Exactly, Corey. Charging such high interest rates as Premier has done only exacerbates the problem. These people are desperate to begin with because they have little to nothing and they do NOT need a credit card to make things worse for them and the entire society. They need to start out small, earn what they can and save that. Premier does not help these people to make more educated decisions, but, looks to make big bucks off their poor choices. They need to be taught "how to fish," and not given "fish" at high prices they can't afford.
Mesopredators like Premier are regulated by the food supply. Related trophic cascade: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/large_predators_critical_to_ecosystems/C41/L41/
Rewild the West. Ted Turner for King.
More: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Onlyth
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but I've heard that SD law invalidates contracts/agreements that force a party to forfeit a constitutional right. The laid off folks might want to investigate this business of not being able to speak under penalty of lost severance - don't know if that flys under state law.
Matt ~ Thanks for dodging the question and not stating your position. I am all for stopping people with bad credit from ever getting credit ever again. Do you think the democratic party would agree? This isn't so far off from what has happened in the housing industry in getting people home loans they couldn't afford. I can already see the gov't program coming to offer private businesses to give credit to customers with bad credit and the gov't will assume the risk. History will probably end up repeating itself.
" Like you, all they see is: PROFIT. That is the BIG problem: GREED OF PROFIT."
Profit is an essential part of business. Do you honestly think people go into business to not make a profit? Do you actually believe that 100% non-profit society would ever work? This is along the same lines of world peace, it will never happen.
"hmm, that would be like charging flood victims three times the normal price for sump pumps, wouldn’t it? We call that gouging, don’t we?"
Horrible analogy you have there. You are paying for someone to trust you when you have no trust at all. This would be like not buying a sump pump at all and just taking it and saying you will pay for it and expecting to pay the same price as the next guy with cash. Do you honestly believe that all credit should be offered to everyone at the same rate? That sure seems to be what you are implying.
"I’m not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but I’ve heard that SD law invalidates contracts/agreements that force a party to forfeit a constitutional right. The laid off folks might want to investigate this business of not being able to speak under penalty of lost severance – don’t know if that flys under state law."
That is entirely hearsay at this point and there hasn't been a single fact provided to validate those claims.
Bill ~ There are no legal definitions of predatory lending and what you posted is entirely up to debate as far as what is justified and what isn't. Most of those I do agree with as being predatory lending, but...
"Unjustified risk-based pricing.
This is the practice of charging more (in the form of higher interest rates and fees) for extending credit to borrowers identified by the lender as posing a greater credit risk. The lending industry argues that risk-based pricing is a legitimate practice; since a greater percentage of loans made to less creditworthy borrowers can be expected to go into default, higher prices are necessary to obtain the same yield on the portfolio as a whole. Some consumer groups argue that higher prices paid by more vulnerable consumers cannot always be justified by increased credit risk.[6]"
I totally agree with this as being OK. If risk can't be assessed on an individual basis, then credit shouldn't even be allowed. Either Joe the guy who can't handle his funds gets credit at a higher rate than those who can handle their funds, or Joe doesn't even have the option.
If predatory lending is ok, weed should be legal, too: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/2011/07/the-pot-republic-one-sheriffs-quietly-radical-experiment.html
Weed should be legal. I'm surprised you haven't seen the huge swing in tolerance from the upcoming generations. As soon as the older generations are gone, it will be legal, just like gay marriage.
South Dakota is not a tolerant place; it is a chemical toilet home to people just like you, Dan.
Well, that is just one well thought out response.
Think about it: one party rule that seeks to limit the civil rights of women and people of color all in the name of small government funded by the Governor's Club. If that's not dystopia, it's Hell.
Dan, my apologies sir. :) Just guessing is all.
Sorry Dan, I have a life and a job can't spend every waking moment waiting to respond to "Mr. I am 26 live in Madison a graduate of DSU and am in the top 5% of earners in South Dakota and I owe my job to the LAIC" but am unwilling to use my real name on this blog.
I would lean towards no....these people should not have access to these products there are other ways I believe that can help reestablish their credit. If 79% is the rate they have to charge to make a profit that tells me either the banks are beyond greedy or that many of the credit risks end up defaulting again and that is the only way that the banks can make money off of them. If that is the case then I think the system is broken and I guess Congress and the President felt that way also.
Matthew, I believe drug dealers can make similar arguments: "Our clients need our product, and given all the risk, we have to charge these rates."
Owing one's job to people who engage in immoral business practices is a very bad position in which to be. 330 silenced Spearfish workers now understand that quite well.
immoral, bro. i'm ok with unethical....
flip that, reverse it....
Well, KELO continues poor journalism in regards to their reporting on Premier Bankcard. Another day, another one-sided story. This time it's by Angela Kennecke. Premier is made to sound like the ONLY victim in this report:
http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm?Id=118746
This is the second story I've seen on their news where they do not even bother to interview poor consumers exploited by Premier Bankcard. They don't ever bother to report why the CARD Act was passed by Congress in the first place. No, they just treat the other side of the story with total neglect. Congress is made to look like the vilian in why South Dakota's economy "took a hit" as they report from Premier's big lay-off. I still wonder, is KELO getting any of their major commercial revenue from Premier and they are afraid they will lose this revenue if they report the other side?
Wow, Guy! KELO continues its pro-credit card spin. Check this May article from Don Jorgenson sounding exactly the same notes. KELO also fronted for the loan sharks on student loan reform in 2009.
KELO is tabloid television.
Yep, Shane and Corey, the Don Jorgenson story in May was the first one I referred to in addition to the latest one by his cohort Ms. Kennecke. I'm just beside myself. I know this, if Steve Hemmingson and Doug Lund were still there, we would be getting a report with BOTH sides, period. Then again, I wonder what the News Director's influence is over this one-sided escapade? I've worked in journalism and I know that the News Director has much influence over the direction and angle of news reported. Is this the fault of Jorgenson & Kennecke or does it go higher. Would they like to report both sides, but, their boss won't let them or are they solely to blame? All I know is I assign blame to the entire station because I really do not know who is making these decisions over there. What ever they are doing, it is NOT working because the majority of Facebook comments on their website do not take the side of Premier Bankcard.