Matt Wuerker for December 30, 2013

  1. Missing large
    frodo1008  over 10 years ago

    Much of what the banking industry charges would qualify for being “usury” as defined by the old testament of the bible. It was one of the evils that was punishable in the book of Leviticus by taking the responsible parties outside of the Jewish communities and stoning the perpetrators to death!

    So. if the ultra conservative evangelicals want to condemn homosexuality as an evil sin, then perhaps in all fairness instead of calling bankers just good respectable business men, we should also be condemning the excess interest that they charge for the evil it is as well!!

     •  Reply
  2. Missing large
    frodo1008  over 10 years ago

    The Jewish people in the old testament could loan money to non Jews at a simple interest of less than some 10% of the total principle amount. The were to loan money to fellow Jews at no interest at all!

    Compare this to a modern compound interest loan on property. Let us say that you need to borrow some $100,000 to buy a home. Let us also say that you are to pay it back at 5% for 30 years. In compound interest you would pay almost some $180,000 for your $100,000 loan. In other words the bank loans you $100,000 and gets back some $80.000, and that is excessive to the amount of being usury.And the interest rates on credit cards are even higher!

    What I have trouble understanding is just why banks can possibly fail with returns of such amounts. And when they fail the taxpayers have to bail them out!

     •  Reply
  3. Crab hat rear
    Crabbyrino Premium Member over 10 years ago

    Usury? Theft is more like it. When will all those common folk get their homes back? Those big fines? When will that trickle down to the common people? I know, I know…NEVER.

     •  Reply
  4. Missing large
    frodo1008  over 10 years ago

    This is a real can of worms. You can Google plenty of sites that state that the federal government is making money off of student loans, and then you can also find sites that state that the federal government is actually losing money on such loans. The losing argument side have the validity that the government is running deficits (although such deficits have gone down from a high of $1.4 trillion in 2009 to under 0.7 trillion for 2014, they are still deficits) so it becomes rather obvious that the federal government is not a profit making organization (at least at this time). Also, at least some of these student loans are made by banks with back up (in case of outright default by the student) by the federal government. And all of these conditions at different rates. So, on the one hand, you may very well be correct, and on the other hand, maybe not!!

     •  Reply
  5. Missing large
    piobaire  over 10 years ago

    Soylent Green…

     •  Reply
  6. Barnette
    Enoki  over 10 years ago

    They invest overseas…

     •  Reply
  7. B8b14dce2f3161ff864f5dfd89ee5a51
    avarner  over 10 years ago

    The banks are benefiting mainly from the 85 Billion $$ – (Now 75 Billion) that the Fed has been printing out of thin air each month. They borrow at almost a zero % interest rate and charge credit card holders 20-30% or more…

    Meanwhile loans for small business at any decent rate, are almost impossible to get. The banks would rather take the easy money as above..

    It seriously should be illegal, but your lawmakers (both sides) support it. And it is all OK with the president. They call it “Monetary policy.”

    We are being massively scammed and NO ONE objects or even talks about it.

     •  Reply
  8. John adams1
    Motivemagus  over 10 years ago

    To Robert Landers’ point: lending at interest was once forbidden to ALL Christians. So the so-called Christians in favor of screwing people with interest rates are a little out of touch with “traditional” Christianity.

     •  Reply
  9. Missing large
    frodo1008  over 10 years ago

    Can you quote me in the bible where it actually states that? Or am I being my usual trusting and naive self, and you are just being sarcastic?

     •  Reply
  10. Image001
    dogday Premium Member over 10 years ago

    “All scripture is….beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight…” (2nd Tim 3:16) I don’t see any “arguing” in the above citations except in this sense: “Argument, Macmillan, third definition: reason or set of reasons that you use for persuading other people to support your views, opinions." It would seem that the use of the Bible in the above cases, by its own words, appropriate and certainly not an offense against God in that it reminds us of His just standards.

     •  Reply
  11.  1 tub puppy  2
    Robert C. Premium Member over 10 years ago

    That’s less than 4% on the (estimated – from TFA) outstanding amount…seems pretty reasonable considering what bank mortgage rates (don’t even mention “Plastic”) are today. Does that “Profit” include administration and collections expense ?

     •  Reply
  12. Qwerty01s
    cjr53  over 10 years ago

    Some math error there? The bank doesn’t willingly take $80,000 in repayment of a $100,000 loan. Maybe $180,000, but certainly not $80K.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Matt Wuerker