[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So what ?
Let them expect what they want, why does this matter ?
I don't know what kind of "indirect but still obviously effective pressure" you are talking about.

This regulation will foster more irresponsibility, and more and more people switching of their effing brains, and expecting that the government would provide all the thinking and common sense.

People need to know their rights, and then defend them. I need no government cranking out regulation, effectively telling me that I don't need to know and understand what's going on, but rather, that I should trust that the government regulates all things for everyone's benefit.

This doesn't sound, taste and feel American to me.

I want responsible citizens, and a government that encourages that. Right now, we are getting the complete opposite.

-t

Well said.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

"Its principal mission is the promotion of "consumer protection" and the elimination and prevention of what regulators perceive to be harmfully "anti-competitive" business practices, such as coercive monopoly."

In other words criminally fraudulant practices.



Exactly the problem. The laws are being changed to further a politcal agenda of dependence and control over the general population. Obama is not my father. The federal government is not my keeper. That seems to be quickly changing however.

I guess I see "fraud" as something that includes implying that "our credit cards are effectively free!" and "there's no need to read the fine print, so just sign here and we'll rush your card to you!" And threatening the destruction of a person's credit rating isn't "coercive?" I respectfully have to disagree with that.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Well said.

I agree that turtle's post is both well thought out and well written. I disagree with his conclusions, primarily because I do not believe that they take into account the entirety of the situation, including the fraudulent quality of credit card advertising that's aimed at 18 year olds, and the coercive nature of the way the credit card companies get parents to pay for their inexperienced children's mistakes.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

One of the jobs I expect my government to do is to keep enormous companies from rolling over me as a consumer.

Could you cite the part of the Constitution that grants the federal government that power?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If you don't understand the fundamental economic problem of a moral hazard (in addition to the other issues that Glenn is raising),

I don't understand it because there is none. Its being used as a political device to further a political agenda.

then I can't help you.

Thats exactly it. I don't want your help. I don't want obama's help. I will take care of my credit cards myself. I will teach my kids how to use credit cards responsibly when they enter college. I don't want the government teaching them anything. The government is a bad example to follow.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I guess I see "fraud" as something that includes implying that "our credit cards are effectively free!" and "there's no need to read the fine print, so just sign here and we'll rush your card to you!" And threatening the destruction of a person's credit rating isn't "coercive?" I respectfully have to disagree with that.

I don't disagree that its coercive. My complaint is that it isn't the government's job to decide that its coercive. Its the responsibility of the adults who are being targeted to be aware of this type of thing. I

Its not all bad. I used a credit card in college (a student account) which I used responsibly. I would not have been able to finish school without a loan if it were not for that card.

I agree that turtle's post is both well thought out and well written. I disagree with his conclusions, primarily because I do not believe that they take into account the entirety of the situation, including the fraudulent quality of credit card advertising that's aimed at 18 year olds, and the coercive nature of the way the credit card companies get parents to pay for their inexperienced children's mistakes.

I think that the situation is irrelevant to the scope of the federal government's power to regulate this sort of thing.

If its that bad then the college's themselves will not allow soliciting from these companies on their grounds, they will advise people against them at orientation. It will work itself out. We need no federal government to take away the choice of using a credit card in school.

All these kids will be 3 years behind in credit history; the responsible ones are the ones who pay for it. The irresponsible ones are just going to get a card when their 21 and do the same thing. Believe me, the credit card companies will find a way...until that gets regulated...and before you know it, we have government set credit limits. It needs to stop now.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Not reading things seems to be your specialty.

Oh, I'm hurt.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

"Its principal mission is the promotion of "consumer protection" and the elimination and prevention of what regulators perceive to be harmfully "anti-competitive" business practices, such as coercive monopoly."

In other words criminally fraudulant practices.

criminally fraudulant practices would be investigated and handled by the FBI.

FTC is in charge consumer protection and preventing anti-competitive business practices. It usually results in just a fine, not jail time. It would then ask the business to make the necessary changes or result in more fines.

Anti-competitive and coercive monopoly isn't criminally fraudulent practices. If it was, Bill Gates and Steve Balmer would be arrest and jailed along with Madoff for criminally fraudulent practices.

It's just that anti-competitive and coercive monopoly is bad for consumers. FTC regulates commerce and protects consumers from "unfair and deceptive trade practices". It's consumer protection. FTC's main objective is "consumer protection".



First you argue it's not the government's job to protect consumers from fraud.

Now, you are using circular logic to argue against the new credit card law. Obama shouldn't need to pass a new consumer protection law because the credit card companies are operating within the means of the law?

No, the new credit card law is to protect consumers which is the job of the government.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

One of the jobs I expect my government to do is to keep enormous companies from rolling over me as a consumer.

Yes, but only in areas where it's not reasonable to expect that the consumer has a chance to make an informed decision him/herself.

You can't protect people from being stupid; nonetheless, this is exactly what it feels like this regulation is trying to do. And the more the consumer gets pampered and even the most mundane decisions delegated to grabbed by the federal government, the more they will be taken advantage off. And guess who's gonna take advantage of them in the end: not only the corporations, but even more, our corrupt government and politicians.

The way to stop this is to empower and facilitate people making informed decisions, BUT letting them making mistakes, too, so they can learn from it.

How else are the citizens supposed to learn to keep their government in check ? This is EXACTLY what's been at the core of this rotten political system; the government grabs so much power, and makes things so unnecessarily complicated (e.g. tax code) that people are relegated to voting robots. And for Pete's sakes, they don't even have a fair chance and choice, among those two parties that are essentially the same.

-t

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Could you cite the part of the Constitution that grants the federal government that power?

Does the phrase "regulate interstate commerce" ring a bell?

The official language, from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution is "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes".

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Does the phrase "regulate interstate commerce" ring a bell?

The official language, from Article I section 8 of the US Constitution is "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes".

Does "regulate interstate commerce" include regulation to prevent people from making stupid mistakes ?

If yes, I'd say we should disown the majority of the country right away, and put their assets under federal receivership.

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Does "regulate interstate commerce" include regulation to prevent people from making stupid mistakes ?

If yes, I'd say we should disown the majority of the country right away, and put their assets under federal receivership.

-t

Yes it does. That's why we have the FTC.

FTC regulates commerce and protects consumers from "unfair and deceptive trade practices".

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Yes it does. That's why we have the FTC.

FTC regulates commerce and protects consumers from "unfair and deceptive trade practices".

-t

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

First you argue it's not the government's job to protect consumers from fraud.

Now, you are using circular logic to argue against the new credit card law. Obama shouldn't need to pass a new consumer protection law because the credit card companies are operating within the means of the law?

No, the new credit card law is to protect consumers which is the job of the government.

Obama shouldn't be passing a new law to address a economic non-issue. He shouldn't be attempting to father 18-21 year olds.

[turtle777]

I have to say, in a country where stupidity of people is blamed on unfair and deceptive practices, hope is probably lost.

The root of the problem, why this country is in such a clusterfu<k, is that personal responsibility has been kicked out. The government facilitated it, and the people, dumb as sheep, willingly went along.

-t

[besson3c]

turtle: you have too much faith in humanity. People are stupid and are going to do stupid things from here to the end of time, you can count on that. Should you be punished, is the question? Perhaps one of our liberties is our right to success without being punished by the stupidity of others?

In some ways, government regulation is like a dog owner trying to keep his dog from eating its own ponys and rainbows, or a toddler from putting her hand into an open flame. Maybe this is one of those sorts of necessary evils?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

People are stupid and are going to do stupid things from here to the end of time, you can count on that.

So ? What makes you learn and avoid mistakes in the future ?
Only if you have to pay a price and "earn" that lesson.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

In some ways, government regulation is like a dog owner trying to keep his dog from eating its own ponys and rainbows, or a toddler from putting her hand into an open flame. Maybe this is one of those sorts of necessary evils?

I reject that idea. Most of the things you are talking about is the responsibility of society (parents, family, friends, teachers etc...).
The government has no business running our lives like that.

-t

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Wait a minute, the MOST FRAUDULENT organization in the country is supposed to protect me from fraud, meanwhile, ordinary citizens are ripped of left and right by higher taxes, re-distribution of wealth to benefit special interests, and unprecedented waste and abuse of funds ?

Huh?
Last time I checked, fraud was a crime and it's the government's job to keep things like that in check. Even if you don't like other actions and attitudes of government, it doesn't change that fact.
If you are among those who like to vote government haters into office who then complain that government isn't run well, then perhaps you should vote for different people. Governments are simply necessary.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No, the federal government shouldn't. Quite simply, its not their job.

The federal government can't take away my freedoms … but the state governments can!?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So ? What makes you learn and avoid mistakes in the future ?
Only if you have to pay a price and "earn" that lesson.

Again, you are giving humanity too much of your faith. Since when do people learn from their mistakes?

You are arguing ideals vs. reality. The reality is that people are going to do these dumb things, and preaching at how they shouldn't doesn't change anything.

I reject that idea. Most of the things you are talking about is the responsibility of society (parents, family, friends, teachers etc...).
The government has no business running our lives like that.

You're looking at it in one dimension. You are looking at it in terms of fairness to people that want to do stupid things, and you are looking at it idealistically and based on your political philosophy. How about what is going to be fair for *you*, given that people are going to do stupid things? Why should we suffer because other people do stupid things?

[besson3c]

See, I'm generally in favor of people doing all the stupid things they want until it starts to affect me. If you want to get high on cocaine, great, just don't drive or put me at risk. If you want to destroy the credit market so that I cannot get credit for legitimate purposes, then we have a problem...

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

All these kids will be 3 years behind in credit history; the responsible ones are the ones who pay for it. The irresponsible ones are just going to get a card when their 21 and do the same thing. Believe me, the credit card companies will find a way...until that gets regulated...and before you know it, we have government set credit limits. It needs to stop now.

While it's correct that not having a card can hurt your credit history (and FICO score) fairly significantly, it doesn't sound like this law is hurting responsible people. If you have a job or a parent who will cosign, you can get a card.

It does bring to question how this law could be abused or otherwise get out of control in the future.

I got a credit card when I was 18 through USAA's First Start program - the card only had a $500 limit on it. That limit increased every year I stayed in school (through four years) and didn't carry a balance on it, so that I by the time I graduated, my limit was still only $1200.

This law may be unnecessary, from the simple fact that creditors have felt a lot of pain from their carefree attitude toward giving anyone and everyone mass quantities of credit before they're ready. I'm fine with a kid having a credit card, but he doesn't need a $5,000 limit on it. $300 should suffice for an eighteen-year-old college student with no income.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I don't want obama's help. I will take care of my credit cards myself.

It's not Obama's law just because he signed it. It was passed with very broad bipartisan support (~80 % aye in the House, 90 % in favor in the Senate).

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

See, I'm generally in favor of people doing all the stupid things they want until it starts to affect me. If you want to get high on cocaine, great, just don't drive or put me at risk. If you want to destroy the credit market so that I cannot get credit for legitimate purposes, then we have a problem...

They aren't destroying anything. In fact, this is helping the credit card companies earn revenue so you can get more credit when you need it.

Its either a "moral obligation to stop this injustice" OR its destroying the credit market. It isn't both.

So pick one of these means to justify your end, then we can discuss its merit.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It's not Obama's law just because he signed it. It was passed with very broad bipartisan support (~80 % aye in the House, 90 % in favor in the Senate).

ok. I don't want the government's help.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Again, you are giving humanity too much of your faith. Since when do people learn from their mistakes?

This is a pretty idiotic argument. People are too stupid to do the right thing, so we need to enlist the help of other people to try to prevent or change that? Human behavior is just that: HUMAN behavior. That doesn't magically change because of their status after an election.

Entrusting people who have the power to further their own selfish interests because you don't trust people is faulty logic.

[besson3c]

smacintush: I trust the system of Democracy (regardless of who is in power) more than I trust the intellect of individual people, how is that illogical? Why do we have any laws if we should not try to prevent or change people from doing stupid things?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

smacintush: I trust the system of Democracy (regardless of who is in power) more than I trust the intellect of individual people, how is that illogical? Why do we have any laws if we should not try to prevent or change people from doing stupid things?

The very purpose of our government was to allow people to do as they please (life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness). The point is they can do stupid things if they like, as long as they aren't trumping other people's right to do as they please.

Whether or not you think its stupid or not is irrelevant. The government is NOT supposed to protect people from themselves. The fact that you would have it do such is ridiculous. How would you, or some fat slob somewhere, know more about whats better for me than me? They never have, don't now, and never will be able to make better decisions regarding my life than I will. They will NEVER put my interests before theirs. Thats the ideology that we're flushing down the toilet right now with our current state of affairs, and THATS the ideology that so many of us are committed to. Let people be stupid if they want, its their perogative(sp?).

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Again, you are giving humanity too much of your faith. Since when do people learn from their mistakes?

Even IF someone wouldn't learn from the same stupid mistakes that they make over and over again, what makes you think the government (of all things) could fix such a dysfunctional person ?

As long as that person poses no harm to society, I say the government has no business interfering.

The government can't and shouldn't save people from themselves. It's not their fraking job.

-t

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

smacintush: I trust the system of Democracy (regardless of who is in power) more than I trust the intellect of individual people, how is that illogical?

Well, for one you are imagining that there is a separation between the two. The republic we live under was created to foster individuality and it is the direct result of individual's intellects. Also, if an individual is not worthy of trust then how can you trust the results of their choice at the polls?

Why do we have any laws if we should not try to prevent or change people from doing stupid things?

Um…to prevent or punish people from harming and victimizing others? I don't think any level of government has the right or the responsibility to protect people from themselves.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The very purpose of our government was to allow people to do as they please (life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness). The point is they can do stupid things if they like, as long as they aren't trumping other people's right to do as they please.

Couldn't you make the argument that people destroying the whole credit market trumps my right to do as I please WRT stuff that involves credit?

Whether or not you think its stupid or not is irrelevant. The government is NOT supposed to protect people from themselves. The fact that you would have it do such is ridiculous. How would you, or some fat slob somewhere, know more about whats better for me than me? They never have, don't now, and never will be able to make better decisions regarding my life than I will. They will NEVER put my interests before theirs. Thats the ideology that we're flushing down the toilet right now with our current state of affairs, and THATS the ideology that so many of us are committed to. Let people be stupid if they want, its their perogative(sp?).

I take it that you are pro choice, pro gay marriage, pro drinking and driving, anti seatbelt, anti war on drugs, etc.?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Couldn't you make the argument that people destroying the whole credit market trumps my right to do as I please WRT stuff that involves credit?

Woah, how the heck will "not implementing a nanny credit card application regulation" lead to "destroying the whole credit market" ?



-t

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Woah, how the heck will "not implementing a nanny credit card application regulation" lead to "destroying the whole credit market" ?



-t

Yeah I'd like to know that too.

[besson3c]

Like I said, I don't have an opinion about this issue because I don't really know what the numbers are that pertain to the objectives of this legislation, but credit is not a bottomless well, as you guys should know since you seem the most preachy about this government taking on new debt. If bad debt leads to the collapse of the credit market as it did with the housing crisis, this affects me.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

My guess: EVERYTHING is a crisis just around the corner from being destroyed unless the government fixes it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I guess I see "fraud" as something that includes implying that "our credit cards are effectively free!"

Exactly like the fraud that is government trying to sell people on "free healthcare".

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Couldn't you make the argument that people destroying the whole credit market trumps my right to do as I please WRT stuff that involves credit?

If that was in any way, shape or form a valid argument in this case...then some sort of check or balance might be necessary. That is certainly not the case here and no one is able to present any evidence otherwise, other than a 4.5 year old opinion.

I take it that you are pro choice, pro gay marriage, pro drinking and driving, anti seatbelt, anti war on drugs, etc.?

Pro-choice - 1st trimester.

Pro gay-union - same rights as marriage under the eyes of the law, just not calling it marriage.

Anti drinking and driving - that has obvious conflicts with everyone's right to life.

Anti seatbelt laws, pro seatbelt use- the government should not be able to write me a ticket on my choice to put my safety at risk. Its a revenue source for them. You're dumb if you don't wear one, but its not my place to force you to do otherwise. If it makes you happier, go for it! It doesn't affect anyone but you.

War on drugs - Complicated issue. The way it is now, pro war on drugs. What you do to yourself is your deal. Drug dealers often engage in other unsavory practices such as human trafficking, violence over territory, illegal gun trafficking etc etc...they destroy people's lives who may or not be users...It isn't the use of drugs that bothers me-its your body to do with whatever you please. Its the surrounding environment that causes societal problems that affect others' lives.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Um…to prevent or punish people from harming and victimizing others? I don't think any level of government has the right or the responsibility to protect people from themselves.

Why do you think the government require certain warning labels on consumer products?

To protect people from themselves.

Do not operate machine while drunk or intoxicated.
Coffee is hot. No, I mean it's very hot.
Standing on top of this ladder might be dangerous.
Do not put plastic bag over your head because of possible suffocation.
Objects in mirror are closer than they appear.
Do not use hairdryer while taking a bath.


The list goes on and on.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

And how are they *ever* gonna learn ?
Or is the government supposed to spoon feed and pamper them until they die ?

-t

Getting a job and paying off your student debt is a good start.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Getting a job and paying off your student debt is a good start.

Oh, definitely.

I don't see the drama in kids getting a credit card, then going overboard and accumulating debt.

They'll have to work their ass off to pay it off, and they'll think twice next time when wanna go into debt. It's a great lesson.

Unlike the government's solution: getting in debt and then printing money

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Like I said, I don't have an opinion about this issue....

So, what you're saying is that you are just a troll, and you just like to bait people ?

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

If that was in any way, shape or form a valid argument in this case...then some sort of check or balance might be necessary. That is certainly not the case here and no one is able to present any evidence otherwise, other than a 4.5 year old opinion.

And that's what I haven't really researched and decided upon myself...

Pro-choice - 1st trimester.

Pro gay-union - same rights as marriage under the eyes of the law, just not calling it marriage.

Anti drinking and driving - that has obvious conflicts with everyone's right to life.

Anti seatbelt laws, pro seatbelt use- the government should not be able to write me a ticket on my choice to put my safety at risk. Its a revenue source for them. You're dumb if you don't wear one, but its not my place to force you to do otherwise. If it makes you happier, go for it! It doesn't affect anyone but you.

War on drugs - Complicated issue. The way it is now, pro war on drugs. What you do to yourself is your deal. Drug dealers often engage in other unsavory practices such as human trafficking, violence over territory, illegal gun trafficking etc etc...they destroy people's lives who may or not be users...It isn't the use of drugs that bothers me-its your body to do with whatever you please. Its the surrounding environment that causes societal problems that affect others' lives.

I respect your consistency here, although I expect that I'd find some alarming inconsistencies if I posed the same questions to some of the other outspoken opponents of this issue. Inconsistency in and of itself is not the problem, the stuff we debate in here is all complicated with so much to debate and contemplate, but trying to position any of these issues as completely one sided just results in the usual knee-jerky shouting matches.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Why do you think the government require certain warning labels on consumer products?

To protect people from themselves.

No, you don't get it.

The labels are there because people don't have the ability to perform their own tests and to find out what's in the consumer products. It's not easily accessible.

This is completely different than signing up for a credit card and spending recklessly. Common sense can't be legislated.

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

No, you don't get it.

The labels are there because people don't have the ability to perform their own tests and to find out what's in the consumer products. It's not easily accessible.

This is completely different than signing up for a credit card and spending recklessly. Common sense can't be legislated.

-t

No, you don't get it.

There's a difference between QA labels and warning labels.

Quality Assurance labels are product testing.

Warning labels are to protect consumers from doing stupid things like injuring themselves by operating an electric saw while drunk or electrocuting themselves by using the hairdryer while taking a bath.


Take a hairdryer for an example.

QA label: UL certified. Underwriters Laboratories
Warning label: Do not use hairdryer while taking a bath because of possible electrocution

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Why do you think the government require certain warning labels on consumer products?

To protect people from themselves.

Do not operate machine while drunk or intoxicated.
Coffee is hot. No, I mean it's very hot.
Standing on top of this ladder might be dangerous.
Do not put plastic bag over your head because of possible suffocation.
Objects in mirror are closer than they appear.
Do not use hairdryer while taking a bath.


The list goes on and on.

The government also double and triple taxes its citizens, tax exempts religious cults organizations and prohibits homosexuals from marrying.

That don't make it a good ****in' idea. [/chris rock]

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Why do you think the government require certain warning labels on consumer products?

To protect people from themselves.

No, warning labels are placed on things so that people can make informed decisions about the choice they are about to make. Huge difference.

Do not operate machine while drunk or intoxicated.
Coffee is hot. No, I mean it's very hot.
Standing on top of this ladder might be dangerous.
Do not put plastic bag over your head because of possible suffocation.
Objects in mirror are closer than they appear.
Do not use hairdryer while taking a bath.


The list goes on and on.

Yup, still my choice given that info whether or not I want to partake in said activity.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No, warning labels are placed on things so that people can make informed decisions about the choice they are about to make. Huge difference.

Yup, still my choice given that info whether or not I want to partake in said activity.

Good point, but still shouldn't be mandated.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And that's what I haven't really researched and decided upon myself...

Glad you admit this up front. I respect you for admitting you don't know enough to formulate a position.

I respect your consistency here, although I expect that I'd find some alarming inconsistencies if I posed the same questions to some of the other outspoken opponents of this issue. Inconsistency in and of itself is not the problem, the stuff we debate in here is all complicated with so much to debate and contemplate, but trying to position any of these issues as completely one sided just results in the usual knee-jerky shouting matches.

I think you might be suprised. I've been watching these forums for awhile now before getting involved very much. I think there are others like me here who might view and define things differently: i.e. is a 1st trimester fetus actually alive?

I think the knee-jerky shouting matches happen because someone decides to take the easy way out and make a stupid, pointless, meaningless, hurtful comment...that behavior is soon followed with similiar in kind. At that point all lines of communication are gone...and its just about who can say the wittiest personal attack without getting reprimanded.

One of your oft-critics actually gave me some advice on how to avoid this...Not meaning to speak for him but he actually respects your (and others) views more than you might think or read in his criticisms.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No, warning labels are placed on things so that people can make informed decisions about the choice they are about to make. Huge difference.



Yup, still my choice given that info whether or not I want to partake in said activity.

Haha...

Ingredients, nutritional facts, and quality assurance labels are to help consumers make a informed decision.

Warning labels are to protect consumers from doing stupid things to themselves like do not use hairdryer while taking a bath.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The government also double and triple taxes its citizens, tax exempts religious cults organizations and prohibits homosexuals from marrying.

That don't make it a good ****in' idea. [/chris rock]

I don't think I have argue whether this is a good idea or not.

I'm arguing that the government does have the right to protect dumb people from hurting themselves, or to protect the consumers from doing dumb things.

And our government does have many laws to control human behavior.

You know, like banning gay marriages. Or banning sodomy, bestiality, or marrying your cousin. Or banning sex toys from being sold in Alabama.


What do you think obscenity laws are? Obscenity is different from one person to another. Different from one state to another.

Why can't females go topless in public?


What do you think marriage laws are?

Why can't I have two or more wives?


All you have to do is look at our marriage laws for the past 200 years and you'll see that our government does have laws to control human behavior.

Marrying at age 16?
Marrying your sibling?
Marrying your cousin?
Marrying your son/daughter?
Marrying two or more women?
Marrying another race?
Marrying the same sex?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Oh, definitely.

I don't see the drama in kids getting a credit card, then going overboard and accumulating debt.

They'll have to work their ass off to pay it off, and they'll think twice next time when wanna go into debt. It's a great lesson.

Unlike the government's solution: getting in debt and then printing money

-t

Making inflammatory statements that would require a whole other discussion to address really doesn't advance this discussion, just in case this hadn't occurred to you.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

No, you don't get it.

There's a difference between QA labels and warning labels.

Quality Assurance labels are product testing.

Warning labels are to protect consumers from doing stupid things like injuring themselves by operating an electric saw while drunk or electrocuting themselves by using the hairdryer while taking a bath.


Take a hairdryer for an example.

QA label: UL certified. Underwriters Laboratories
Warning label: Do not use hairdryer while taking a bath because of possible electrocution

Right...and is there a law or government intervention saying I can't use a hairdryer while taking a bubble bath? No. The warning label is to provide you with a brief education about your pending choice. It does not prevent you from doing that activity, nor is there a regulation or law against it.

I'm all for educating people on the risks of things. Infact, thats what I would say is good for these kids. Put a warning label on student credit cards-Warning: Overuse may cause severe debt and disownership from parents.