To Protect and to Serve II

#658
#658
Pure badassedry.

Bring on the onslaught, I don't even care. This is too awesome.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoJizBrXR08[/youtube]
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#659
#659
orangeblood79 said:
Pure badassedry.

Bring on the onslaught, I don't even care. This is too awesome.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoJizBrXR08[/youtube]
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is pretty awesome. It's also great that he has leaders of the black community standing there in support. That guy seems to be the kind of police officer that really does make the community safer.
 
#660
#660
orangeblood79 said:
Pure badassedry.

Bring on the onslaught, I don't even care. This is too awesome.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoJizBrXR08[/youtube]
Click to expand...

Lmao! Basically what he's saying is, my gang is better and bigger than your gang.

Then he places the cherry firmly on top by saying they'd rather die on their feet, than live on their knees. He says this as a person responsible for enforcing the completely arbitrary laws of his political masters.

You just can't make this **** up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#661
#661
What I got out of that video was that captain Higgins took drama in high-school. He totally sold the hardass country ball busting cop stereotype. Could have been pulled straight from a stoner comedy lol. It was pretty good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#662
#662
Just like the cops didn't kill Eric Garner because he was obese, these Chattanooga cops didn't break this woman's arm...

Cops don't break arms, floors do.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTfRD_7TxrA[/youtube]
 
#663
#663
US Marshalls in full tactical gear spend tens of thousands of dollars to track down 30 year old $1500 loan...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mamCo79MZBQ[/youtube]
 
#664
#664
Rasputin_Vol said:
Just like the cops didn't kill Eric Garner because he was obese, these Chattanooga cops didn't break this woman's arm...

Cops don't break arms, floors do.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTfRD_7TxrA[/youtube]
Click to expand...

I thought you would prefer tazing to the cops physically removing the jewelry.
 
#667
#667
Grand Vol said:
You think anything cops do is unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Just for the record so there is no misunderstanding or any accusations of me putting words in your mouth, would you care to comment on the 2 videos?

Seems like it would be hard for cops to gain the support of the community when you have a Terry Tate impersonator breaking the arm of an old white lady and a police tactical team playing the enforcers for a private entity over a 30 year old $1500 debt owed by a black man...
 
#668
#668
Rasputin_Vol said:
Just for the record so there is no misunderstanding or any accusations of me putting words in your mouth, would you care to comment on the 2 videos?
Click to expand...

I'd say the student loan one is way, way, way beyond the means of the Federal Government. And something some feared would happen when the Federal Government took the private industry out of the student loan business.

However, here's some additional info on that:

Law enforcement officials discuss outstanding student loan arrests - Story | KRIV

And also:

U.S. Marshals didn't really arrest a man for missed student loan payments - Yahoo Finance

So it's not quite just "failure to pay."


Rasputin_Vol said:
Seems like it would be hard for cops to gain the support of the community when you have a Terry Tate impersonator breaking the arm of an old white lady and a police tactical team playing the enforcers for a private entity over a 30 year old $1500 debt owed by a black man...
Click to expand...

Terry Tate with a taser?
 
#669
#669
U.S. Marshals commonly serve civil processes to include summonses to appear in court over outstanding federal debt. In Houston, there are approximately 1,500 people who have been identified for not appearing in court to address their outstanding federal student loans, which has resulted in a judge issuing warrants for their arrest, according to the Marshals Service.

Unforunately, it looks like it was a lapse in communication that landed Aker in handcuffs (to be clear, he did not spend time in jail — he was escorted by Marshals to court). And, to add insult to injury, he was ordered to pay more than $1,200 in fees back to the U.S. Marshals service for the cost of arresting him.
Click to expand...

1. If it is gonna cost you $1200 to get $1500, is that a good return on investment? Don't they have bigger fish to fry than harass a guy over a 30 year old $1500 loan?
2. If he can't/wouldn't pay $1500 over 30 years, what are they gonna do to get this $1200?
3. If they put him in jail for not appearing in court or non-payment or whatever, how much would it cost the taxpayers to jail/house/feed a guy that owes $1500?
 
#670
#670
Rasputin_Vol said:
1. If it is gonna cost you $1200 to get $1500, is that a good return on investment? Don't they have bigger fish to fry than harass a guy over a 30 year old $1500 loan?
2. If he can't/wouldn't pay $1500 over 30 years, what are they gonna do to get this $1200?
3. If they put him in jail for not appearing in court or non-payment or whatever, how much would it cost the taxpayers to jail/house/feed a guy that owes $1500?
Click to expand...

1. It's not just about "harassing" a guy over $1500. It's about his repeated attempts to avoid the mandatory court date that was set up. Don't fall into the trap of thinking this was just a singular incident. I don't think the Marshals should have gone in like they did either, but at the same time, there is proof he was purposely avoiding them since 2007.

2. Say this was a private institution and they sent out bounty hunters instead. Would your stance change in the matter?

3. Your own link says he didn't go to jail.

But this does bring up the point that Bernie keeps harping on in his campaign. At what point does the Federal Government forgive debts? Your thoughts on that matter?
 
#671
#671
1. It's not just about "harassing" a guy over $1500. It's about his repeated attempts to avoid the mandatory court date that was set up. Don't fall into the trap of thinking this was just a singular incident. I don't think the Marshals should have gone in like they did either, but at the same time, there is proof he was purposely avoiding them since 2007.
Click to expand...

That is all I'm saying.

2. Say this was a private institution and they sent out bounty hunters instead. Would your stance change in the matter?
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to the idea of bounty hunters. If there is a way to handle this by the private sector that doesn't break the law, I'm all ears. But the govt (city/state/Federal) doesn't need to be involved in putting people in prison over a debt or detaining someone over a debt...

3. Your own link says he didn't go to jail.
Click to expand...

I clearly said " If they put him in jail"...

3. If they put him in jail for not appearing in court or non-payment or whatever, how much would it cost the taxpayers to jail/house/feed a guy that owes $1500?
Click to expand...

But this does bring up the point that Bernie keeps harping on in his campaign. At what point does the Federal Government forgive debts? Your thoughts on that matter?
Click to expand...

If it is a pubic debt (like money borrowed from the govt, I say tough titty. The govt doesn't need to be in the loan business anyways. The govt needs to just chalk it up as a loss...

If it is a private debt, then we can discuss the bounty hunters or some other means of resolving the issue. Or, the really simple solution would be to prohibit usury all together...
 
#672
#672
You know, red is such an angry font. Micro aggressions all around this morning.

I agree the government shouldn't be in the student loan business. Having said that to say this, it can set a dangerous precedent (if it's not already) for individuals and companies just to tell the government to eff off over simple loans if they don't pay. Think Solyndra for example. And before we get into the "way we wish it was" I'm taking this as the way it is and being pragmatic about it. A debt is a debt, whether it's to a government or to a private entity. And you can't tell me in 30 years the man couldn't have paid off $1500. The methods used to collect the debt are surely debatable, but the debt is real and needs to be settled. And compounded by the fact the man avoided the court hearings to settle it for almost nine years.
 
#673
#673
Grand Vol said:
You know, red is such an angry font. Micro aggressions all around this morning.

I agree the government shouldn't be in the student loan business. Having said that to say this, it can set a dangerous precedent (if it's not already) for individuals and companies just to tell the government to eff off over simple loans if they don't pay. Think Solyndra for example. And before we get into the "way we wish it was" I'm taking this as the way it is and being pragmatic about it. A debt is a debt, whether it's to a government or to a private entity. And you can't tell me in 30 years the man couldn't have paid off $1500. The methods used to collect the debt are surely debatable, but the debt is real and needs to be settled. And compounded by the fact the man avoided the court hearings to settle it for almost nine years.
Click to expand...

Meh, I would argue that there are still far bigger concerns for the govt right now than everyone with a student loan defaulting because some guy in Houston decided not to pay. It was a 30 year debt. $1500 from a govt that is $19 trillion in debt. Yeah, if you shakedown every student loan borrower in this country, you have now got a country with an $18 trillion debt. I guess happy days would be hear again if that happens...
 
#674
#674
Rasputin_Vol said:
Meh, I would argue that there are still far bigger concerns for the govt right now than everyone with a student loan defaulting because some guy in Houston decided not to pay. It was a 30 year debt. $1500 from a govt that is $19 trillion in debt. Yeah, if you shakedown every student loan borrower in this country, you have now got a country with an $18 trillion debt. I guess happy days would be hear again if that happens...
Click to expand...

Still the principle of a debt owed regardless of how old it is. I own a house and have a 30 year mortgage. If I suddenly said "screw you, bank!" in the first year of my loan, what would have happened? Or even at year 10 or 20? The major difference is my property is real and could be taken back by the bank. This has a different set of circumstances and it's not as simple as kicking someone out of their house.

Yeah, there surely are bigger fish to fry in the economic game. And there likely were other avenues of retrieving those funds, payroll deductions for example, that might have been used instead of sending the Marshals in.
 
#675
#675
Grand Vol said:
Still the principle of a debt owed regardless of how old it is. I own a house and have a 30 year mortgage. If I suddenly said "screw you, bank!" in the first year of my loan, what would have happened? Or even at year 10 or 20? The major difference is my property is real and could be taken back by the bank. This has a different set of circumstances and it's not as simple as kicking someone out of their house.

Yeah, there surely are bigger fish to fry in the economic game. And there likely were other avenues of retrieving those funds, payroll deductions for example, that might have been used instead of sending the Marshals in.
Click to expand...

Well, here is the problem in the analogy you just painted. The bank didn't have the money to loan you anyways. In fractional preserver banking, my $100k deposit into your bank can then be used by the bank to creat 9 brand new loans at $100k. So I, for example, deposit $100k into Grand_Vol's bank and that is all they have in their reserves. They, in turn loan you plus 8 other people $100k in home loans. Lets say 7 of those 9 people (including yourself) pays off the loans plus interest. The bank just made $700k plus interest off of my original $100k deposit. Now, lets suppose that the remaining 2 borrowers default. Well now, the bank gets to take 2 properties (2 real assets). In other words, the bank is able to make money out of thin air and either drain you of real assets if you default or get access to your time and labor to pay off the original loan amount plus interest. The bank never had any real skin in the game to begin with. They created money out of nothing and are repaid with real assets and your excess labor.

On the other hand, I loan you $100k to buy a home. My money had to be obtained from my own labor and productivity. I am not able to create money out of thin air. The $100k I loan you represents my excess time and labor. I loan you the money and you default. Now a crime has truly occurred. You have robbed me of my excess time and labor. But, that is the risk of loaning money to people that are either not credit worthy or fall victim to the larger economy. I gambled and lost. Tough titty. Maybe my lending standards need to tighten up, or I need to take some collateral or maybe I should get out of the lending business all together.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top