Obama's favorite "community organizing" group ACORN just has its Nevada office raided for registering more living impaired voters.

1/3 of the show is over and it was all about defending Obama from "incited violence" and blurring any connection to Ayers, and the next segment is going to be about reinforcing a "much more scary" McCain connection to some other group....because McCain's name was on their letterhead....in 1985.

So Keith doesn’t like the tactics from the McCain political camp?

But these are the same tactics Keith uses every night on his gong show.
He blames Rudolph Giuliani for 9/11 he has blamed McCain for the economy, terrorist attacks, exploiting a dead soldier, exploiting the dead of 9/11 and for every worst possible thing you can think of.

He even has a segment every night on his show using lies and distortions to discredit McCain. But not a thing on Obama?

These negative attacks on both sides are something I just dismiss and ignore. By the media, like Keith’s show, airing these dirty attacks it takes away from the real issues they should be talking about. And it makes it worse.

Keith isn’t adding anything to the debate on who should president, he is just preaching to the converted and dumbing down TV news. If this is what he’s going to talk about every night, I can’t see his ratings every going up.

Is there anyone out there from the Windy City? Is this Revko thing going anywhere? Sounds like he is ready to give up everyone since he has figured out that some bad boy could make him his boyfriend for a long, long time if he doesn't do something special here for the Feds.

Obama bringing up 9/11? Won't that make him worst person in the world on Olbermann's show? Isn't that FEAR mongering?

Obama is skating on Social Security and Medicare. Won't touch it. The pussy. "I would like to deal with it in my first administration." Very direct and specific answer.

That is bulllshit that everybody goes to Delaware because they have loose laws. Delaware has a long history of commercial law which has been well established and tested in state and Federal courts for years. Companies go there because of that as much as anything else. Also, Delware is fairly stable in their commercial code and have not tinkered with it for political purposes so there is a predictability that is a good thing. The contrast would probably be California where the world is pretty much upside down and frequently.

P. U. this "debate" stunk. Give these guys an hour to ask each other questions.

First: This was not a debate. They never are anymore. This is sound bite Q & A that with few exceptions, is strictly stump speech segments.

The first time I heard Obama say this, I thought I misunderstood. Then he said it again.

"We must decrease our energy consumption."

Sounds like a plan guaranteed to bring about an economic depression.

It's over. McCain lost. President Obama. Vice President Biden. Attorney General Leahy. Etc.

Are you happy now, Mike and Patrick and Ellen and Chrish and Kos and Arianna and Keith? Are you happy?!

And are you happy now, almighty George Soros? Your vision is all but assured of coming true.

That would be an interesting technological conundrum. I am trying to work out how to reduce my energy consumption. Got me in the proverbial Mind F--k.

I got it. I will quit working out at the gym. Will Obama love me?

Soros is jumping with joy. He will be free to roam the world shorting the currencies of nations and interest rates, etc. and generally contributing to the economic chaos will his buddy just smiles and says go get em George.

Obama ridicules McCain for saying, "The fundamentals of the US economy are sound," and 15 minutes later, he says, "I am confident about the American economy."

Whatzupwidat????

Businesses locate in Delaware because of favorable laws... period. Credit card companies moved to South Dakota for the same reason.

The United States is in BIG trouble with either one of these candidates as evidenced by their behavior and rhetoric last night. Both are responding poorly during this very big crisis. I turned off the debate with no confidence in either man's display of leadership ability, intelligence, temperment or attitude. Look for a "one termer" whomever it is (likely Obama right now) with a very different country, economy and world 4 years from now. Be prepared, America.

VERO POSSUMUS!

It's the most biased network yet
So Keith was removed from the set
Dave Gregory's in
To continue the spin
And make sure Barack's needs are met

Actually credit card companies moved to South Dakota for cheap labor and because they got a longer float on the money.

Credit card companies moved to both Delaware AND South Dakota so they could raise interest ratea on money already loaned to whatever rate they chose for no reason. Credit card companies moved to Delaware and South Dakota so they could act exactly like loan sharks with no oversight. Credit card companies moved to Delaware and South Dakota so they could legally rob the middle class.

This guy is the doucheiest douchebag of them all. I literally feel like I need to take a shower after accidentally surfing by his abortion of a television program. Hey, check this out by the way: http://thedudesblog.com/2008/10/08/guys-in-obamas-neighborhood-vs-guys-in-the-dudes-neighborhood/

Welcome aboard, Dude. I'm sorry you stumbled on to Oralmann's Hour of Spin. When I used to recap WPitW for this site, I felt like *I* needed a shower myself.

Mike

I suppose it makes one feel good to make the comments about loan sharks and stuff, but it does not reflect well on the author as being anyone who is serious enough to understand the issues.

Neither Delaware nor South Dakota can enact laws which affect interest rates charged by credit card companies or any other lender in any other state. The individual states legislate that stuff. Most states are pretty flexible on high rates for cards. Their unstated position is that no one has to get a card nor do they have to run up charges beyond their ability to pay every month. It is a personal decision and a personal responsibility to mange ones' finances. I suppose if we want to nanny thing it can be changed but you will have to do it 50 times.

These guys went to South Dakota a long time ago before there was an internet and electronic funds transfers and all of that. All transfers were by printed check using the mail. The idea was to get the money coming in, into a bank in one part of the country and get credit for it. Then you would pay your bills from another part of the country. There would be anywhere between and 3 and 7 day lag. So the money that came in could be invested overnight for those days and earn some income before it had to be used to clear checks. Since these companies process hundreds of millions of dollars daily, that few extra days of earning money for them was a huge deal. Most people would think that was being smart although some people who think they are loan sharks would probably say they were cheating.

As far as Delaware is concerned, the big deal about being a "Delaware Corporation" has long since passed as anything important. There was a time when it made sense because the commercial code in Delaware seemed to be a bit ahead of most other states in terms of being well established, clear, etc. So companies did it because the rules if you will were pretty well understood. Many of the companies that today are Delaware companies have been for a very long time. It would be stupid to spend the money to relocate their legal domicile just to avoid criticism of being a Delaware Corporation. Most newl formed companies don't do that any more unless the person who started it, or his or her lawyer as some mindset that it would be cool to be a Delaware Corporation like the big boys. There really is no major advantage anymore. I would say that companies that are already Delaware Companies that form new corporate subsidiaries probably make them be domiciled in Delaware. That would simply be because if you are already there you probably want to keep everything there. That is no big deal. Big companies which are domiciled in other states do the same thing in those states.

Anyway, that is the deal. If you want to change it then go to work. But know what you are talking about before you start.

"Neither Delaware nor South Dakota can enact laws which affect interest rates charged by credit card companies or any other lender in any other state. The individual states legislate that stuff."

SO what's your point since you seem to have made mine?

Interest rates are charged based on the state laws of the state that the CC company is based, and NOT based on the laws of the state in which the cardholder resides....thus the importance of Delaware and South Dakota.

That said, defend the practice of jacking up interest rates of money that has already been loaned if you wish, but that makes you a defender of what should be criminal loan sharking in the process.

A perfect analogy for that kind of a practice would be if you bought a car last week, but then the dealer contacted you a month later to say they had decided to raise the price on the car you've already purchased. I know of no other entity that allows the seller to change the price of the product once the sale has been made?

As for your "50 times" point, I live in state in which such activities would be illegal, and there are many others. However, that protection against local companies does not prevent a company based in a state that allows such criminal practices (such as Delaware) from holding me to the laws of the state they happen to be incorporated in.

And finally, I am not a lawyer, but I do not accept your premise that usary laws could not be legislated on a Federal level.

You can't read. The interest rate laws are made by each state for that state. I don't know how much more clear I can make that. I am a resident of Wisconsin. No credit card company based in Delaware or South Dakota can charge interest rates higher than that allowed by the state of Wisconsin. I know that this might be hard to understand, but I don't know how to paint the picture in a way that is more clear.

I don't know what state you live in but if they let someone from South Dakota charge South Dakota rates then frankly they don't much care about their citizens and perhap rather than focus on Presidential politics you might find it more in your interests to get involved at the state level. Wouldn't it be a shame if your state happened to be Illinois. Perhaps you could blame McCain for the problem

You also do not understand the credit card business. They were never originally in the business of being lenders. They were a middleman for the merchants, etc. and still are today. They make it easier for consumers and easier for the merchants. They charge the merchants a fee for the service since they are taking a lender type risk. If you don't pay your credit card bills they cannot go back to the merchants to get their money. Later on they got into the business of letting people take longer to pay their card charges and accordingly charge interest. There loss ratios were high in that part of the business because they were lending to people they didn't even know. The solution was to charge higher than standard rates to those who took longer to pay. Maybe it is out of hand but it is your choice. If you don't like the fact that the rates go up then pay the damn bill. It isn't like the person involved doesn't owe the money. It is always their choice to spend more than they can repay.

I don't recall saying that the Feds can't regulate this stuff. They can always try. I am not a lawyer (in fact I work with lawyers a lot and as a basic fact of life, I hate lawyers even when they are working for me) but my guess is it wouldn't last because of constitutional grounds. The Feds are limited in the exercise of powers by the Constitution although people on the far left usually think that is only in cases where they may not like what the Feds want to do, or where they want them to do something even if it is not Constitutional because it fits their agenda. If you like Federalizing everything, we could all save a lot of money because we could get rid of all the morons who run states and counties and cities, etc. Perhaps you might like that. States have right under the Constitution in terms of powers that exist for the states and not for the Federal government. In theory the founders wanted to make sure that there was not one overwhelming dominant central power of government like perhaps a king or something that would make all the rules.

Your analogy on the car doesn't work and is specious. When you buy a car for later delivery you sign a contract with the dealer that specifies the price. If the dealer changes the price you walk away. When you agree to contractual terms with the credit card company you agree that they can change the interests rates. You made the contract with them and you cannot walk away. That is why generally people always advise people to read the fine print.

You can change the laws, pass new laws, Federalize it or whatever. You cannot make laws that prevent individual people from being stupid. Usually, but quite apparently not always, somewhere in their formative years a parent or someone taught them certain basic commons sense things like live within your income, there is not free lunch, 0% interest rates don't make sense and perhaps one should be aware of that.

If you want to take on a group of people who are predators on probably more the next level below middle class, take on the rent to buy people. That is a license to steal. But what are you going to do? Not enough money to put a decent meal on the table but they got to have that new HDTV.

P.S. As a point of personal preference. I just go crazy over people who cut and paste someones comments and then do something below. I know I am getting old, but in fact I pretty much remember what I wrote and don't need to have it re-written for me. I especially hate it when someone reprints the sentance and still can't seem to read it correctly. Guess it is just me.

10th Cavalry wrote: "Actually credit card companies moved to South Dakota for cheap labor and because they got a longer float on the money."

That's simply not true. South Dakota changed their state law to allow credit card companies to charge a high interest rate to attract business. Also, if your credit card company is based in South Dakota, you will pay South Dakota rates... period (yes, even if you live in Wisconsin).

"That said, defend the practice of jacking up interest rates of money that has already been loaned if you wish, but that makes you a defender of what should be criminal loan sharking in the process.

"A perfect analogy for that kind of a practice would be if you bought a car last week, but then the dealer contacted you a month later to say they had decided to raise the price on the car you've already purchased. I know of no other entity that allows the seller to change the price of the product once the sale has been made?"

###
Ah, yes.....Spoken like a true nanny leftist.

Before I endorse the bank check and receive the loan, there is a very long form that contains something important....They are THE TERMS. The terms state the interest rate clearly, the schedule of repayment including the payments and the ability of the parties to change the terms....including whether the rate can be raised, lowered, etc. I, as the debtor, agree, in writing and by cashing the check, with the terms of the loan.

I would never sign for a loan that had such horrible terms. I would do without instead of accepting funds that, in paying them back, would make my future economic position worse. I would approach banks that had terms acceptable to me, and only take a loan out that I could afford to pay back. It is simple common sense.

This is the difference between liberals, like MikeH, and normal people. Normal people expect adults to act responsibly and read terms of agreements, like loans, before they enter into them. Normal people expect adults to know their limits in borrowing money and not bite off more than they can chew. Normal people expect adults to not cry foul when they made a mistake in accepting money from a creditor under terms that are legal, but abviously bad for the debtor. Normal people expect adults to accept responsibility for their actions in taking out loans for things that, when they cannot continue to meet the terms, they lose. This is basic economic law.....pay for things you can afford and only take a loan when absolutely necessary and under terms that you can live with.

The federal government's behavior since the Great Society of the 1960's is reflective of the declining personal financial responsibility of the American public and now, both parties are pandering to what liberals like MikeH have accepted as normal adult behavior. We are about to embark on a journey never done before....relinquishing personal economic power to unelected officials that could abuse such power, making our Constitution basically meaningless.

My advice to anyone is to never accept money under terms you cannot accept, no matter what the consequences. This seems to be advice not acceptable to people like MikeH who wants the nanny state to control the credit flow because of Americans' inability to suffer through pain of their own doing.

Thank you cee on. You are much more articulate than an old buzzard like me. Appreciate it. There is one other point to re-affirm. Well looky here. This is a piece from bankrate.com. Look what state amongst many let's the credit card companies charge up to 24%. Gosh isn't there a former state senator from Illinois running for President? Guess he didn't worry about this too much when he was in a position to do something for the middle class. Oh well must be water over or under the dam now.

"In 1982, the four largest banks in Maryland relocated their credit card operations to Delaware because of that state's lender-friendly credit card laws. Other states with lender-friendly credit laws include Georgia, ILLINOIS, Nebraska, Nevada, Rhode Island and Utah."

"To hang on to the credit card business, many other states loosened state usury limits."

"In the early '80s, most states capped credit card interest rates between 12 percent and 18 percent. Today's caps are in the 18-percent to 24-percent range."

Here is also an important piece of advice from the same article.

"The only person who can insure that you get a good card rate is you. The best advice is to build a strong payment history and keep your credit as clean as possible." "It's whatever is agreed to in the contract," says Michael Donovan, a consumer attorney and partner at Donovan Searles in Philadelphia.

I would assume that this means that people actually have a choice as to whether or not they want to agree to borrow at very high interest rates. Perhaps the suggestion by those who want to nanny them is that middle class people are dumb, morons, whatever and the Feds have to nanny them against making those kinds of decisions. I would say again I don't know how you can legislate to keep people from being stupid.

In fairness, I will stand corrected on one issue as revealed in this final segment from the article. Not afraid to admit it. Howeve, it is still the choice of the person.

"When it comes to credit card interest rates, the law in a lender's home state rules. It doesn't matter what kind of rate cap exists in a customer's state."

BTW, everyone....conversing with MikeH is a waste of time. Firstly, he's a hypocrite. Just look at his latest rants against greedy banks and note he does not include his candidate's financial friends, like Franklin Raines who, as FANNIE's manager got a HUGE bonus based on fraudulant numbers and just purchased a penthouse in Washington DC fro 4.9 million dollars. Fannie and Freddie Mac fraud are results of democrat party cronyism and hypocrisy that Obama ignores to address and shows how much of a fraud he is regarding his claim to be new and an agent of change.

Secondly, MikeH will only argue a point he deems relevant to the subject and without an ounce of intellectual honesty. He will attempt to frame YOUR argument and when you do not bite, he claims you have "lied." This is why he is attracted to the propagandist Olbermann. Remember, propagandists speak the truth, the problem is that there is an adjective missing from their truth, they use half truths. The whole story, or what is known as context, is left out of the arguments people like Olbermann and MikeH make and fair-minded people see it very quickly.

Lastly, MikeH is a demogogue....example: "Credit card companies moved to Delaware and South Dakota so they could legally rob the middle class." Like I said, people sign up for credit cards, use them voluntarily and everytime they sign on the line they are agreeing to the terms. No one is robbing anyone. One party is agreeing to borrow money from someone else. Simple. Adults, real, thinking, mature adults should know an interest rate of 21% is a silly rate to accept and should never borrow money under that term and condition. MikeH does not hold the debtor at all capable or responsible to make good or bad decisions. He, and his ilk, are satisfied in making an emotional and irrational argument regarding the use of credit cards as a viable longterm loans. Why even address such a deranged ideologue.

VERO POSSUMUS!

Nice piece of typical dishonesty above from Cee, the one already proven shameless enough to post lies about taxation rates, but then changed the subject when called with undeniable proof exposing his lie. He now calls that 'reframing an argument'.

Now I see that he is dishonest enough to ignor my credit card argument entirely, while changing it completely into something it wasn't, but into something he finds easier to attack. My argument critiqued the common but dispicable practice of drastically changing the interest terms AFTER the loan has been made EVEN THOUGH THE CARDHOLDER HAS BEEN MAKING ALL PAYMENTS RESPONSIBLY. This is being done all the time. This is a morally indefensible position, so Cee changed the argument to something he thinks he CAN defend.

It is pretty clear that what Cee REALLY wants is someone he can bully into accepting the false premise of his modified argument after he has finished diverting the discussion to something that doesn't even resemble the original discussion. A perfect example of this is his diversionary response above to my credit card post.

That said, it was interesting to see how Cee has finally admitted that McCain, his stated hero, has no leadership ability after all.

I wonder if Cee has also noticed what a spineless coward McCain has now shown himself to be by slinging personal smears at Obama behind his back but lacking the spine to do it to his face?

It's so funny to watch McCain repeatedly question Obama's honesty while falsely holding his own honesty as being above reproach.

But here is a simple exercise that anyone can repeat: Google "McCain is a liar", and you will get 446,000 hits........If you google "Obama is a liar", you only get 89,000 hits.

I know, I know,......it must be that EVIL mainstream media again!

2:47 PM....D E M O G O G U E R Y . . . . . . .

Only one factual error though....."changing the interest terms AFTER the loan has been made EVEN THOUGH THE CARDHOLDER HAS BEEN MAKING ALL PAYMENTS RESPONSIBLY." Ok, who claimed that a bank only can apply certain terms because the cardholder has been making their payments? Terms are negotiated and agreed to BEFORE the money is accepted by the consumer and those terms should be scrutinized carefully....this is what adults do....children who need nannies (like MikeH) don't seem to believe knowing such important details is their responsibility.....

Read the cardholders' agreement on any revolving, unsecured credit offer (credit cards being the worst type of loan) and you will find that the agreement the cardholder has said, "yes" to when signing their name is usually an APR that can be changed....at the descretion of the creditor. I would never allow such a loan to exist in my portfolio. Only a fool would. Cut up that credit card and pay with cash, my friend.

Once again, MikeH cries "robbery" when someone enters into a voluntary contractural agreement with a debtor for terms that may allow changes in an interest rate. Mmmm.....what an argument!

Sorry Cee, you can only defend such morally reprehensible business practices with an argument like that unless you would ALSO defend traditional loan sharking enforced with violence simply because it was agreed to in a signed written agreement. The fact is that you have NO morally defensible argument any such practices in any civilized nation.

You call yourself a "Christian", yet practically everything you write seems to violate Biblical principles that I was taught in my Southern Methodist upbringing.

And cool it with the steroetypes. I don't have one dime in Credit Card debt, but that doesn't keep me from recognizing a moral and ethical vacumn when I see it.

Well I guess I am sorry I caused so much consternation. The ability to change rates is in the contract before a person signs off so they know it can happen. And in the example, since it appeared you were saying that people payed promptly, the rates are irrelevant. Furhtermore, if they have that kind of sense they probably have the ability to go elsewhere and borrow for a lot less money.

There is a lot of stuff that governments let go which is morally reprehensible. And there are a lot of things that leaders in government do that are morally reprehensible. Take for example Slick Willy and his cigar tricks. Personally I have never thought that the government should try and stick their noses in moral issues. It is sort of an oxymoron to think that politicians could determine proper levels of morality. I have always felt that a nation either has or develops a culture of morality or it won't exist. I don't need someone from the Department of Morality sticking his or her nose in my business. These guys Dems., Reps., Inds., any of them only want to focus on being a nation of laws. They have taken that concept to the infinite in my view. Everything must be "objective". Morality doesn't fit the view regardless of who is in charge.

Ok. I am done with this particular stuff. I can only take so much morality in a 24 hour day and then I just have to get back to sinning. Figure I will go have a smoke a fag and have a glass of wine and then maybe do the naughty with mama later. Bless me father for I have sinned.

BTW. For those who are looking for subliminal messages, when I grew up, a FAG was a cigarette.