Tag Archive for political updates

Should Payday Loans be Regulated?

Why Payday LoanPayday loan Companies Should be Regulated

Dante put usurers, those who charge high interest rates on loans, in the 7th circle of hell. The general thought was usurers did not “live by the sweat of their brow,” and thus were making money in an unnatural way. While the fantasy portrayed in the Divine Comedy clumped these people with some of the worst offenders, in modern times, we tend to see those who offer short term, or payday loans, at high interest, as a necessary evil.

People, such as Bruce Claymore of My Payday Loans, suggest that their service offers borrowers a safety net that they can’t get from more traditional services like banks and revolving lines of credit. This situation inevitably puts those with bad credit (usually the poor) at the mercy of annual interest rates that often top 400%. In real world terms, this means that if you borrow 200 dollars one week, on your next payday you might owe the loan servicer around 35 dollars. This might not sound like much, especially if you are desperate for the money. And perhaps this would be fine if people simply used these companies as a final resort – as a safety net.

What tends to happen, however, is that people get caught in a vicious cycle in which they must continually borrow every payday to cover the amount they are losing. So 200 dollars turns to 235, which turns into 280, which turns into 350, and so on, until the amount owed in interest has surpassed the original amount owed three, four, five times over.

It is reasonable for a company loaning money to factor into interest things such as rate of inflation, overhead, and risk – but a 400% annual rate surpasses any other type of credit ten times over.

Short term payday loans should be regulated by the federal government in a similar way that credit agencies are. There should be clear limits on the annual interest rates of such loans, and, in general, companies should be required to vet their customer base by not offering credit to people they know will not be able to pay them back. This point is particularly important, because eventually people dig themselves into a whole they cannot get out of, and subject themselves to a slew of penalties, late fees, and eventually legal fees as well.

In a number of ways, the federal government should move to audit these companies in the way that colleges and universities are audited. If the percentage of people paying back the full amount of the short term loan does not meet a certain criteria, then that particular branch should be subject to penalties.

What becomes particularly complicated in this issue is the emergence of payday loan companies in Native American tribes. Because Native American tribes operate under a different set of federal regulations, they are often not subject to the same rules as the majority of the population (such as being able to admit those under 21 into casinos). These institutions would have to be carefully regulated as well, but perhaps not within the same parameters as the companies you can find littered across urban America.


Is a Politicians’ ability to survive a scandal more to do with their ability to govern and maintain coalition than with the public’s approval?

Throughout American history there have been plenty of scandals in the White house and Congress. Some of these scandals made headline news across the globe, while others were swept under the rug and dealt with more quietly. This begs the question as to what truly makes a scandal newsworthy and how do some politicians seem to walk away from a scandal virtually unscathed, while others are left picking up the pieces of their broken careers and personal lives?

Political Scandal’s in America:

Unfortunately, it has become common place for a politicians’ face to be plastered on every media outlet across American for another scandal. The apologetic politician then holds a news conference, often times with their “loving and supportive” partner by their side, to admit to the public what transpired and to beg for forgiveness. From Bill Clinton and the famous Lewinsky dress, to former governor Spitzer, scandals have laid stack to almost every area and office in America. However, while some scandals seem to all but ruin a person’s life and career, other scandals seem to propel some elected officials further into stardom and increase popularity among voters.check more facts about this at their latest comment.

Political Goodwill:

Often time’s politicians can walk away from a scandal seemingly unscathed and this can largely be attributed to the goodwill the politician has with the public and voters. While most voters will never applaud a politician who gets caught up in a scandal, they are far more likely to forgive and forget it the politician has garnered goodwill with them prior to the scandal. Even though former President Bill Clinton lied under oath regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, he had already established himself as a great leader and drastically increased American’s economy. The American public was also very fed up with the Republican Party, which also highly favored Clinton and offered him another escape route of this high profile scandal. Clinton left office nearly two years after his sex scandal with some of the highest approval ratings of any American President. On the flip side of the coin are politicians who do not have public favor and thereby find themselves in hot water once they are found to be embroiled in a scandal. Such is the case with former state attorney general and governor, Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer found he was mired in an ugly prostitute scandal and did not have fellow officers or the general public to fall back on, was forced to resign from office merely two days after the scandal was first reported.



There are far too many circumstances to take into account when trying to understand why some politicians can escape scandal and others cannot. Politicians who seem to be more forthright with their mistakes tend to find more favor with the voting public and can more often than not move forward in their political career. However, it is also extremely important for the politician to have well defined and formed bonds with other politicians and to be held in high regard within their party, or else the party is more likely to turn its back upon the politician who is entangled in the scandal and will gladly see that they are removed from office.http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2014/01/13/politicians-scandal/


A psychological bias helps to explain why voters focus on the election-year economy

There are many factors voters take into account when choosing which candidate to elect. However, one of the more intriguing stats surrounding presidential elections is how highly voters taking the present economy into account during an election year. The present condition of the economy has been found to rank higher in voter importance than gay marriage, abortion and even the candidates’ voting record.

Presidential Election:

In the United States the President, and Vice President, are elected every four years by indirect public vote. This allows the citizens of America, who are over 18 and eligible to vote, to let the voice be heard. Each state is made up of a set number of members which comprise the U.S. Electoral College. The U.S. Electoral College then directly elects the President and Vice President.

Psychosocial Bias:

Overwhelming evidence and statistics have been compiled to show what happens within the Presidents first three years of office are not of large significance when it comes to getting re-elected. One of the primary factors voters do however take into account when choosing the next President of the United States is the present condition of the American economy. When the economy is booming the incumbent President more often than not retains his place in office and is re-elected. While when the economy is suffering and in a recession, the incumbent is at a great risk for losing a bid for re-election and a new President is typically voted into office.

Psychologists have studied the economy and how it drastically affects the American voter and alters public perception. It appears the American public often develops a case of amnesia when election years come around and forget the prior years of hard economic times and instead tend to focus on the present day conditions of the economy. Economist s are trying to inform voters on the history of the American economy, so voters are better educated and more informed with heading to the polls on election day and not just taking into account the current conditions of the economy. Physiologist are also trying to reach out to voters and to explain the bias many voters bring to the voting booth and may not even be aware they are doing so.



It is often assumed the current economic condition will drastically influence American voters and many argue if the economy had been slightly different in 2008 that John McCain would have been elected President instead of Barrack Obama. The American public seems to be stuck in a voting rut and largely casting votes on the beliefs and attitudes surrounding the economy. Psychologists have blamed this bias on cognitive dissonance, and claim voters are not even aware they are basing their votes on the economy. The incumbent party does an excellent job of using this fact to its advantage and pushes the economic agenda onto the voters through media, debates and social media outlets. However, without further information at voters disposable, they will more likely than not continue to let the economy shape and alter their voting on a whole.http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p1.html


Executive orders are not a viable route around political gridlock

President Obama recently told Congress if they kept obstructing instead of acting, he would proceed with his agenda without him. While it is unclear if the President could actually move forward in this manner, it is very interesting to note such executive orders could exist and potentially get pushed through without the approval of Congress.

What is Presidential Power?

The concept of Presidential power is one of the primary bases for the American political system. The President of the United States has a great deal of power including: implied powers, those granted by the United States Constitution, powers given by Acts of Congress , as well as other forms of power to sign or veto legislation and to command the United States armed forces. The President also has executive powers, which are the broader powers to manage national, and international, affairs and as well as managing the United States government. With these executive powers the President can create new rules and regulations which do not require Congress’s approval, and still are binding laws.

Gridlocked Political System

A gridlocked political system is when voters are divided, or the opposing sides of the government, are deadlocked and cannot come to a common conclusion. This often happens in legislation because it is controlled equally by the democrats and republicans. This also happens frequently when the United States House of Representatives or U.S. Senate is controlled by the opposing party as the President of the United States. When a political system has reached a stalemate, the President can use his/her executive powers to bypass the gridlock; however this may not be the most viable route to choose.for more information and updates visit our latest blog post.

Downfalls of Using Executive Orders to Bypass Political Gridlock

While the President of the United States does technically have the authority and power to over the gridlocked Congress and implement new laws with the single stroke of his mighty pen, there are many downfalls to changing policies in this manner. While the President may very strongly want a particular policy or law to be enforced, he/she must also think about their long term goals and visions and consider potential voter pushback. Legislature and judges may also pushback against the President if he/she chooses to discount their opinions and professional judgment, especially considering they are voted in by the public to speak and advocate for the masses and general population of the United States.

While the democrats and republicans often do not see eye to eye on certain platforms and can have drastically different agenda’s, they usually can find enough common ground to avoid the President having to enact his unilateral power and enacting executive orders without their support. The United States government has been laid out in such a manner where this is a constant state of checks and balances, making it very unlikely and extremely difficult, for any single party or person to have ultimate power and control. Therefore, any assertions that it is likely the President of the United States will use executive orders to bypass political gridlock, are unfounded.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/13/1082940/-Carney-spins-the-executive-order-heat-off-White-House-to-congress



In spite of the power the United States President does have, he does not have ultimate power and is unable to push his agenda through in a unilateral manner. Even though the President can execute executive orders, he still needs the backing and support of Congress in order to work his way through a gridlocked system. With the checks and balances established within the United States government, it is unlikely a President would bypass Congress and enact his/her executive power.


In the long run, the Supreme Court leads public opinion on controversial issues

Some Americans will argue the rulings of the Supreme Court help to shape and form the public’s opinion and acceptance of certain issues, while others will quickly debate the Supreme Court is not an adequate representation of the American public as a whole.

The Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court of the United States of American is the highest federal court within the United States. Established in 1789 in the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court hears cases involving federal issues and also has jurisdiction over smaller cases within the legal system. The Supreme Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, all of whom are nominated by the President and then confirmed by the United States Senate. Justices on the Supreme Court have life tenure unless they are impeached, retire and resign.

How does the Supreme Court Shape Public Policy?

The Supreme Court has had its hand in shaping the American political system for decades. Some of the biggest decisions the Supreme Court has ruled upon are Roe. V. Wade in 1973 which has been said to empower women and offer women dignity and their rightful place in American society. Another large decision the Supreme Court ruled upon was Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, in which the Supreme Court banned state laws which mandated racial segregation and has been said to be what launched the civil rights movement.

While there is little doubt these momentous decisions largely impacted America and changed the course of American history, it can be debated as to how much they reflect the opinions of the general public. America is still largely divided upon the topic of abortion, and sadly, racism still exists today in places around the country. More recently, the American public has also become divided on critical topics such as the death penalty and gay rights.

The Supreme Court was established in large to make the tough calls and decisions which could easily destroy and impact countless lives. The Supreme Court Justices always take two things into consideration when considering how to rule:


1. individual cases
2. public opinion

The Supreme Court does an excellent job of looking at each case individually instead of basis it entirely upon the past. Doing an outstanding job of always maintaining integrity as well as adhering to the American Constitution, the Supreme Court looks at the facts at hand before ever entering into any ruling. Secondly, the Supreme Court does take into consideration public opinion and outcry when making its decision. While this is not the only determining factor, the Supreme Court is well aware of who it is serving and knows if the vast majority is not in favor of something it does garner a long hard look and analysis.http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/why-law-should-lead


The Supreme Court ultimately will rule however they find to be most fitting and morally right. In spite of potentially suffering from short-term backlash after a hard fought decision, the American public opinion does tend to align with that of the position taken by the Supreme Court. Due to this fact, the Supreme Court could in fact continue to drastically alter and shape the political arena within the United States.


The election of Democrats alone is not enough to ensure gay rights

In the United States Congressional officials are elected by majority vote and to represent the opinions and views of the public. However, there are times when elected officials do not align their votes with the majority and support the minority instead. This has been witnessed a lot in the recent voting, in large with the issues surround gay rights and gay marriage. Numerous elected officials, typically democrats, are siding with the minority and voting for gay marriage and equality for all.

What are Gay Rights?

Gay rights have long been sought after and fought for in the United States, with roots tracing back to the Stonewall riots in New York during the summer of 1969. During these riots the police raided gay bars and were met with strong resistance, in spite of it being illegal to have same sex relationships in every state besides Illinois. During the years between 1969 and 1974 the number of gay rights organizations grew exponentially from only a handful to thousands across the country.

During the 1970’s gay rights primarily focused on equality and equal treatment for any person, regardless of sexual orientation. Today, gay rights groups are focusing on larger rights such as marriage. With the increased visibility of gay rights groups, the support of Hollywood movie stars, and professional athletes admitting they are gay, gay rights have witnessed drastic changes and come to the forefront of America’s attention.

How Politics Influence Gay Rights

In 1996 DOMA, or Defense of Marriage Act, was passed in the United States. The DOMA act was passed almost unanimously among every state and strongly opposed gay marriage. Even though the vast majority of the public was opposed to gay marriage in 1996, 14 Senators and 67 members of the House of Representatives, voted against DOMA and for gay marriage. Of these voters in support of gay marriage, notably all but one was from the Democratic Party. Also very noteworthy is the fact that the only Republican to vote against DOMA, Steve Gunderson, was found to be gay during a heated debated which transpired on the House floor.

More recently, a lot more democratically elected officials are also coming out in support of gay rights, particularly for same sex marriage. With more and more elected officials, as well as those beginning to campaign for office, supporting gay rights, it leaves a lot people scratching their heads as to why the sudden interest in gay marriage. Many will argue those seeking election or re-election, are strongly advocating for gay marriage, because the gay and lesbian community is very powerful and also has access to a lot of money – money which potentially could be used to help win political campaigns.for more information, visit the original source.



Regardless of if one is a republican, democrat, or independent voter, the topic of gay rights is not going away in American any time soon. With gay marriage now legal in 17 states and the Congressional Budget Office extending employment benefits to same sex partners, this topic is actually just heating up. While democrats may be more likely to help push gay marriage through in more states and be stronger advocates for the gay and lesbian community, electing democrats is not enough to ensure gays are treated with the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. Ultimately, the power does still lie in the hands of the majority, and the elected officials will have to do what is best for his/her campaign and use their elected voice to speak for the public which voted them into office.http://internationalstudies.ss.uci.edu/node/25505