DaimlerChrysler Financial Forces Army Reservist to Fight Car Rip-Off From Iraq
| Tue Nov. 27, 2007 8:13 AM PST
On Monday, I posted a story about one of the new hazards of buying a used car, namely the now-common practice by car dealers of forcing customers to waive their rights to access the legal system as a condition of buying a car. The idea is that if the dealership rips you off, you have to submit to private, binding arbitration, conducted by an arbitration firm hired by the dealership instead of filing a lawsuit. The rules in arbitration are a lot different than the regular courts, in ways that create hardships for consumers. Those hardships are a lot worse if you happen to be deployed to Iraq.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Today I heard a story from a Rhode Island consumer attorney named John Longo, who told me about a client of his who had a small dispute with a Jeep dealer over the title of a car he bought with a friend. The Jeep was financed through Daimler Chrysler Financial Services, and the sales contract and financing agreements included a mandatory arbitration clause forcing the car buyer to waive his constitutional right to go to court. So, after having to run up some legal bills fighting the car dealer over $220, Longo's client filed a claim against both the dealer and the financing company with their pre-selected arbitrator from the American Arbitration Association.
Long story short, the customer got deployed to Iraq while the case was moving forward. Longo filed a request for a stay, to postpone the case until his client came back to the States. If the case had been in a regular court, Longo says a judge would have granted the stay automatically under the federal Service Members Civil Relief Act. Instead, though, Daimler Chrysler and the dealership objected and want to proceed without Longo's client present, which they can do because in arbitration, a plaintiff is not even guaranteed a live hearing. It's also unclear whether the federal relief act applies to arbitration.
Daimler Chrysler could cut the soldier some slack, but Longo says the company has refused. "It's Daimler Chrysler's policy," he says, which isn't surprising. The automaker/finance company (which sold its Chrysler half earlier this year) has been a major player in the American tort reform movement, which has spent millions to block individual Americans' ability to sue big companies in court for fraud and other wrongdoing. Mandatory arbitration clauses have been a major component of that effort.
Daimler Chrysler's former general counsel Steven Hantler has been one of the most vocal critics of the civil justice system, writing in the Wall Street Journal last year that, "The unfair civil-justice system at the state level has made the legal system in the United States the world's most expensive and imposes huge costs on consumers and businesses alike...The 'cost' of a litigious society is borne by every resident in every state."
Of course, the public also bears the cost of sleazy car dealers and finance companies, too, in a far more direct way, as Longo's client discovered. While Hantler is on the public speaking circuit selling tort reform to business groups, Longo's client, who might tell the other side of that story, has been instructed by the military to stay out of the press. Longo asked that we not publish his client's name, but he says the case is a classic example of why most consumers are much better off in the traditional legal system rather than in private arbitration.
Update: Longo reports today that after we posted this item, he got an email from the arbitrator with a decision granting his request for a stay in the case. (We can't claim credit for the decision, which was drafted, apparently, the day before.) It may be a while before Longo's client gets the good news, as he recently informed Longo that he will be "outside the wire" for a month and out of email contact.
Despite the decision in his favor, the arbitration experience has prompted Longo to petition the Rhode Island Motor Vehicles Dealers License and Hearing Board to adopt rules that would prohibit car dealers from making customers submit to mandatory arbitration with any company that doesn't abide by the federal Service Members Civil Relief Act.
Congress has already taken some steps in this direction by outlawing arbitration clauses in lending agreements made to military members and their dependents, but the new law didn't come in time to help Longo's client. Longo's proposed rule would extend those provisions to military personnel who buy their cars with cash.
Comments
Its really an example of how bad-off we are, in any sector, because our government has been bought and sold from the top down. Meanwhile theres a commercial every 3 minutes promoting that a shiny new lexus as the perfect object to stick a bow on to make life perfect, livable, just and fair (this month). Its also another example of the thug nature of the private sector. Its also sad. Its just a vehicle and the soldier in this case is one of the FEW people in this country actually experiencing first-hand what it takes to keep the wheels of Merica churning: blood, crime and lies. The rest of us just get more and more options to pacify our boredom and told at every turn that the bottom line is watching, and somewhere along the way we all signed a contract that states we can't do anything about it.
how do car dealers "force" people to waive their rights?
gun to the head: sign the papers or leave in a body bag?
sign the waiver, sign the purchase papers or Vito and Bruno are going to kneecap you as you try to leave?
Americans just need to absorb the fact that they CAN walk away from a bad purchasing agreement and go buy from someone with scruples
in 1979 Chrysler should have gone out of business, but the Carter administration signed on to a plan to force taxpayers to subsidize a company whose products were not meeting the market's desires and expectations
it was a massively bad, huge "corporate welfare" decision we still suffer from
customers walked away from Chrysler then, and they should do it now
Sure, a consumer can just walk away from a car deal with an arbitration clause and go down the street to the next car dealer with an arbitration clause, and the next, and the next.
Try to find a cell phone, a credit card, etc. without an arb clause. It has been said that it would be malpractice for an attorney to draft a contract for a business without an arbitration clause. That is because arbitration has been described as something akin to having your opponents brother-in-law decide your case. I disagree, it is like having your oppoinents MOTHER decide your case.
I have lost 7 cases in twenty years of practicing law. 3 have been American Arbitration Assoication arbitrations in the past three months. The issues in the arbitrations I lost were all issues that I had won before a judge in other cases.
Perhaps credit card companies, lenders and car dealers would like to have consumer attorneys decide their debt collection lawsuits ( by the way, bogus debt collection lawsuits filed by businesses are without question the biggest lawsuit abuse on a scale thousands of times that of any abusive lawsuits filed by consumers). I assume they would not. Likewise, we do not want corporate defense attorneys as arbitrators deciding our cases. Seems like a no-brainer to me, but Congress obviously is having some difficulty grasping the concept.
Submitted by Ted (not verified) on Tue Nov. 27, 2007 7:09 PM PST.
If arbitration agreements hurt consumers, why not open a car dealership or bank or credit card that advertises that it doesn't have mandatory arbitration agreements?
The fact of the matter is that consumers prefer the lower prices that arbitration permits to the ability to have an attorney bring bogus litigation. (Those with meritorious claims aren't bothered by the possibility of arbitration.) Because if consumers didn't prefer arbitration, the litigation lobby wouldn't have to spend so much money trying to legislate arbitration agreements away: they'd disappear on their own.
(And if you're going to argue that arbitration doesn't lower prices to consumers, you need again to explain why George Soros isn't cornering the credit-card market by offering a no-arbitration card that also has lower expenses.)
i've just got to feel that there are more 'lawyer' horror stories per 1000 lawyer involved cases than there are 'arbitration' horror stories in an equal amount of cases
however, i'm willing to give a fair hearing to any and all 'arbitrator' jokes that may come around in the future
assuming, of course, that lawyers don't successfully protect their turf by pressuring the government to eliminate arbitration as an option to law suits
(anyone want to lay odds on that prospect, given the trial lawyers record of huge contributions to major political candidates?)
Someday soon, someone is going to sue on the grounds that the arbitration clause was signed under duress. You can not purchase a car nowadays without having to sign one. Every major car dealer forces you into it. It would be very hard to defend against a duress suit as all the plantiff has to do is ask what percentage of that manufacturers card are sold without an arbitration clause. This will eventually wind up in the supreme court. Mark my words.
The civil court system is the only way to keep big business honest. We mustn't allow big business to continue to rig the game with Tort Reform. They already have an unfair advantage. The civil system levels the field somewhat.
Trial lawyers don't contribute nearly as much to political candidates as do corporations. At least in civil court the individual has a fair shot. The consumer has consistently lost ground in the face of the ever growing and pervasive corporate culture.
Donald Franklin tells us:
"Trial lawyers don't contribute nearly as much to political candidates as do corporations."
$380 Million PLUS, from lawyers and law firms since 2004?
70+% to Democrats?
WAY more than pharmaceuticals, @ ~$45 Million
Tobacco, a paltry $8.5 Mil.
Oil & Gas, only $53 Million
Telephone Utilities, a mere $19.8 Mil.
Insurance, just about $81 Mil.
Commercial banks, ~$70 Million
Add up all those corporations, and the lawyers are STILL over $100 Million ahead.
Now, WHO is going to get the most attention inside the beltway?
Among POLITICIANS?
WHICH Sector is being heard by the most "hand-out" (as in, 'my hand is out, palm up') crowd on the planet?
Be honest.
Who's kidding WHO here?
Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/
For those who care about such things, the awards for Top Three recipients of 2008 campaign season donations from lawyers and law firms go to:
1. Hillary Clinton - $9.62 Mil.
2. John Edwards - $8.17 Mil.
3. Barack Obama - $7.96 Mil.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=K01&cycle=2008
Rudy G. comes in a distant 4th, at 1/3 of Hillary's take.
Consumers and our veterans have lost all rights. In addition, our dollar has depreciated drastically and our government wants to merge our currency with South and Central America currencies, our sovereignty and independence as a nation is being eradicated, the English language is being refused as the national language, our borders are not being protected, the laws on the books are not being enforced, debt to a communist country, etc. are just a few of the problems that we the people have allowed. We must take back our government from Corporate American and instill Government of the people for the people by the people. Only we as individuals can do this. Tell your elected officials if they don't do what is good for the people they will not be voted in office. Get rid of all of them. VOTE, VOTE, VOTE
Submitted by Nancy (not verified) on Thu Nov. 29, 2007 8:54 PM PST.
Jet -- I challenge you to find a car dealer that doesn't have a binding mandatory arbitration clause in the purchase and/or financing contract. Maybe you can use commercial transportation everywhere you go, but I can't and most people can't. SO if all dealers have that clause how do you suggest we travel to work, the grocery store, etc.?
Just walk away is not an option. I promise you Jet, that you have binding mandatory arbitration agreements in many purchases you have made -- I would love to hear your story if you are ever forced into this kangaroo court.
Submitted by NS (not verified) on Thu Nov. 29, 2007 9:05 PM PST.
Ted, believe me, for the consumers who have been destroyed in the kangaroo court of binding arbitration the product certainly was NOT less expensive. How would you like to buy a newly built home with no rebar in the foundation, no window flashing, defective siding, and a leaky roof allowing water intrusion and end up in this kangaroo court that nearly ALL homebuilders mandate in their contracts and/or the worthless third party warranties that they "give" their buyers? I am aware of MANY homeowners who were forced to allow their home to go to foreclosure because of these kangaroo courts. NO jury would allow this scam to happen to a homebuyer.
Submitted by Nancy (not verified) on Thu Nov. 29, 2007 9:29 PM PST.
Jet, you simply don't GET it. Anyone going to arbitration would be an absolute fool NOT to have a lawyer representing them. Lawyers have nothing to do with this arbitration issue. It is all about ordinary citizens having their 7th amendment rights removed due to predispute binding arbitration in nearly every aspect of our lives. I have NO objection to arbitration IF it is a choice by both parties AFTER a dispute arises and BOTH parties understand what arbitration really is all about.
Submitted by Waiving rights as a condition of purchase sounds fishy. (not verified) on Fri Nov. 30, 2007 4:59 AM PST.
That waiving your rights as a citizen for due process of law in order to purchase a car from a company that has the privelege of doing business in the USA - hmmm... must be one of Cheney's pals.
["Jet -- I challenge you to find a car dealer that doesn't have a binding mandatory arbitration clause in the purchase and/or financing contract."]
i don't need to
who says you have to buy a car from a car dealer?
my father was a car salesman, who taught me this very valuable lesson:
the best deals you'll find are on used cars bought from individuals, unless you're afflicted with new car fever, in which case you can just pity yourself because i'm not going to pity you
["Just walk away is not an option."]
sorry, but it still is an option until you can show me who's been holding guns to people's heads, marching them into car dealers and forcing them to buy cars according to the dealers terms
no one, other than a court of law can strip a person of constitutionally protected rights
and no one can force another person to enter into a legal contract against their will
if they do, then the contract is null and void, and we both know it
secondly, lawyers have EVERYTHING to do with this arbitration issue, since the tens of thousands of disputes that are successfully resolved through arbitration every year are eating into fat-cat lawyers earnings, and they don't like it one bit
why do YOU think they've contributed that $380 million dollars to politicians in the last 4 years, as Say What? pointed out? something to do with having their interests protected, perhaps, or just their sense of 'civic duty'?
i know..., this is another huge "government action is the ONLY solution" issue, like education, poverty, drugs...
and if government tackles this one, rather than the consumers organizing to deal with it themselves, you'll get a solution as successful as the ones government has delivered on those other issues (though it'll be a VERY successful solution for the LAWYERS)
Actually, in the eyes of godless capitalism they were never people but either consumers/markets and or machinery of production. With 2/3 of the current economy functioning solely on consumption to challenge the operations is very much like the VISA ad that jams up the flow when the guy uses cash. Consumption is now a patriotic duty. Just remember what the creature in chief said on 9/12/01 "go to the mall keep shoppin'." So, the logical conclusion of such a mindset is not to challenge or question anything - just by another one!
Whatever happened to the BBB alternative of arbitration? For that matter, where did the Federal Trade Commission take off to? Perhaps they've been in an undisclosed secure location.
Stock brokers also use arbitration to settle disputes and it's a stacked deck against the consumer. First, the brokerage firms deal with the arbiter daily, I suppose, while they don't know the complainant from anything. The arbiter is located in NYC the complainant could be in Alaska or Iraq for that matter. The arbiter's allegiance is to the brokerage firm. Now take privatizing Social Security which would subject those involved, to arbitration. Let's face facts few would have the skills or even the inclination to enter into arbitration against a brokerage firm, if they even knew what this is what they would have to do to settle a dispute.I did try to arbitrate against a broker and the way it was handled was that the arbitrator contacted the brokerage, which told them they had done nothing wrong and the arbitrator then wrote me that the brokerage firm told me what they told him,that they had done nothing wrong, therefore I had no case and it was case closed.
Submitted by David Kish (not verified) on Fri Nov. 30, 2007 2:37 PM PST.
I can not fail to reflect on the Bush GOP administation's determination that continues to promote and push a freemarket and consumer driven economy when parisites are multiplying at an unpresidented rate. Buyer beware should be posted at the entrance to every banking and retail establishment in America.
Bush doesn't believe in free markets (in spite of what you may have heard) and he's not taken a single step to promote anything that remotely qualifies as a genuine "free" market, as defined by the Austrian 'school' of Free Market Economics.
What Bush DOES believe in, and what he's done quite a bit to promote is Protectionism, and Corporate Welfare.
There's a huge difference.
www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=463&sortorder=articledate
www.csmonitor.com/2007/0718/p09s02-coop.htm
www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0114-02.htm
You, sir, are so far off the beam that you are a threat to yourself.
How long will it take individuals in the market, refusing to buy from dealers, to change dealer behavior.
They can't. As soon as the loan officers at the various banks suss out what's hapnin' they will begin to close loan opportunities, except to those who buy from dealers.
Now do you see why you are a danger to yourself?
Personally --- I don't believe you. I believe you work for a dealer, just like your dear old daddy.
i'm sorry...but i realized after i posted that i wasn't finished...
believe me...i realize how 'inconvenient' my suggestion is.
but why not start agGRESsively working to undermine 'the system', this multiheaded monster, by inSISting on superefficient
public transportation systems that include taxilike services for people that need to transport material too unmanageable for public trans and for people that public trans might be too physically inconvenient for...
the money saved dealing with all the insurance, purchase/lease/'mortgages'
would allow something like this i don't know HOW many times over...
or is this TOO radical an idea for some of you?
you REALLY want to change 'the way it is', or do you all just like bitching about it?
b/c this, to me, seems like THE answer, although i'm sure i've missed a few improvement possibilities...
i feel that the reason this planet is changing in a way that will prove insupportable in not too long a time is b/c we're too adDICTED(and i chose this word b/c it couldn't be truer)to our 'conveniences'.
i remember years ago sitting in the movie theater during 'a few good men' when cruise's lawyer character was grilling nicholson's high military position character and nicholson says in response to cruise's 'i want the TRUTH...'
'you want the truth???
you want the TRUTH????????
you can't HANDLE the truth...'
whatever species dominates next should write THAT as our epitaph...
put THAT in your gas tanks folks...and tanks for listening...
Considering the nature of the clause in this type of an agreement, which apparently has no option for refusal other than perhaps an endless search for a dealer not apt to mandate such a term, is the only issue here folks. Is this a justifiable mandatory inclusion or is it not, considering that it MAY be impossible to find dealers otherwise disposed?
It seems that using this situation to grind ideological political axes is besides the point. Statistics about how malicious are the contributions made by attorneys can be made about any significant group and we can all bemoan the fact that money from all sources spoils the system. It doesn't help that the Supreme Court has eqated these contribution to "free speech" in a tortured consideration of the 1st amendment. Trying to settle the issue at hand by citing the fact that some class of attorneys contribute to political candidates does not directly address the point, in my opinion. I believe that this separate issue will not be adequately dealt with until we have reasonable public financing of political campaigns. Allotment of an amount considerably less than that consumed by current runs for office can be justified as a particularly clever test for potential candidates in managing a modest budget.
I do not have any sense of the fairness of these arbitrations and, as they are somewhat new (at least in the public conscience), it remains to be determined if they represent a fair and equitable option to civil judical action. It does stike me as significant that, if the contention that virtually all auto dealers, credit card companies, etc. now mandate such practices, they must find it advantageous to avoid civil litagation not that they necessarily support such alternatives because they champion fairness to all parties. But this is probably just a cynical inclination on my part, I admit.
If only VOTE VOTE VOTE worked. The problem is, you can't be sure your vote is even going to the candidate you picked. Second, the only candidates that can possibily win are those most corrupt, as it is money that seems to put people in gov't. People need to stop voting for only candidates that can win, and instead vote for the one that supports his/her views...and eventually, maybe someone like Dennis Kucinich (the only Democrat with enough cojones to bring articles of Impeachment against Cheney..though it won't be acted upon)or Ron Paul, who understands that it is the Federal Reserve and it's fiat money (unbacked) that has messed up our economic condition...most people don't know that the Fed, Res. is actually a cabal of private banks, working together as a Central Private Bank...the Gov't could print its own money, interest free, but America ceased to be free in 1913 with the passage of the Fed. Reserve act, and--in the same year--the 16th amendment, or "Income tax" amendment--which is not lawful. It was never properly ratified, and in several never overturned cases the S.C. ruled that the 16th gave Congress "no new taxing powers." We pay income tax,not because there's a law that says we have to, but because if we don't they'll put us in jail, and every penny goes to pay just the interest on our debt. People think it's for infrastructure, but we have other taxes for that..like, the 42 cents per gallon gas tax--that pays for roads and highways, etc. Your property tax pays for education. Watch Aaron Russo's (Trading Places) last movie, "America:Freedom to Fascism"..you can watch it on google video.
I have this old pickup, and I was thinking about ditching it and making payments on a
new one, until I started
reading and realize that it's got about the same dimensions and GVW and stuff as a lot of the new ones. What IS different about my old broken truck is that I OWN it. And,
with a little bit of work, I could have it back on the road with a 5-speed manual
transmission and a new engine in it. Maybe it won't be as pretty as the shiny new ones, but it'll do work, which is what they're for.
The above piece talks about
DaimlerChrysler financial
services, there's a loan-shark outfit if there ever was one, one of many, joins the ranks of GMAC and Ford Motor Credit, lending institutions are in the business of collecting monthly payments. You sign the paper, they expect the money, that's how it works.
Oh, and G.I. loans? Their
specialty. Why? Because they
KNOW you're getting paid next month. Yeah. I'll never buy
another vehicle on credit,
a guy that needs wheels can
yak up the 300 bucks for a
decent set of wrenches and
a Chilton's guide and head
to the lemon lot and 'make'
his own luck, there for
900 bucks cash.
Donald Franklin tells us:
"Trial lawyers don't contribute nearly as much to political candidates as do corporations."
$380 Million PLUS, from lawyers and law firms since 2004?
70+% to Democrats?
WAY more than pharmaceuticals, @ ~$45 Million
Tobacco, a paltry $8.5 Mil.
Oil & Gas, only $53 Million
Telephone Utilities, a mere $19.8 Mil.
Insurance, just about $81 Mil.
Commercial banks, ~$70 Million
Add up all those corporations, and the lawyers are STILL over $100 Million ahead.
Now, WHO is going to get the most attention inside the beltway?
Among POLITICIANS?
WHICH Sector is being heard by the most "hand-out" (as in, 'my hand is out, palm up') crowd on the planet?
Be honest.
Who's kidding WHO here?
Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/
In response to Say Whats post.Are these all cumulative contributions since 2004 or just the trial lawyers total?And if the trial lawyers have given so much more than all of the corporations then why are the arbritration clauses becoming so prevalent?They aren't a very effective lobbying group.
Why would anyone give up his/her legal right to litigate an issue other than by being "hoodwinked" into thinking arbitration is best or by being duped into thinking that his/her agreement to arbitrate a disagreement is the only way that person can purchase the product!
Screw the dealers, real estate salespeople, stockbrokers, etc., buy direct!
Arbitration is not a substitute for your right to sue. Sue the hell out of them!!
Submitted by LarryE (not verified) on Sat Dec. 1, 2007 2:37 PM PST.
To the "abitration must be good or the Free Market (Praise be its name!) would destroy it with its all-consuming righteous fire and besides lawyers are evil" crowd, I say get a grip, a clue, and some connection to day-to-day reality in which most people have to live. ("Open a car dealership or bank or credit card [company]," indeed. Was that intended to be taken seriously? Sure, just go out and start your own flipping bank! What's the big deal?)
As for the big money lawyers give, in terms of political influence a better measure is amounts coming in via PACs, because those amounts arrive in much more easily noticed big bundles.
So let's make the same comparisons, same years, same source, but drop individual contributions from the total. This is what we get:
Lawyers/law firms, $32 million
Insurance, $41 million
Pharmaceuticals, $26 million
Tobacco, $7 million
Oil/gas, $18 million
Telephone utilities, $14 million
Banks, $26 million
Suddenly not so much of a difference. In fact lawyers aren't even #1 any more.
But wait, there are others.
Leadership PACs, $92 million
Health professionals, $48 million
Secuities/investments, $23 million
Bear in mind the industry divisions are somewhat arbitrary. In terms of policies and proposals, i.e., goals desired, it would not be unreasonable to consider pharmaceutial and health professional PACs together in discussing political influence. That combined total comes to $74 million.
And how about banks plus securities/investments? $49 million.
In fact, an argument could be made to combine telcoms with computers/internet. That's $27 million.
So it's safe to say that in terms of actual political influence, lawyers are at most just one among many.
On the other hand, this exercise may not have been necessary: The fact that a specific (and wholly irrelevant) point was made of noting what percentage of donations from lawyers/law firms went to Democrats was perhaps revealing enough to make further argument unnecessary.
Stop cutting th corporations slack with the pat line that anyone can walk away from a bad purchase agreement...you know that crap is buried in 6-point type 'small print' tucked away somewhere in a small blizzard of peperwork that is rushed through when the customer's purchase decsion is being consumated...corporations need to act like responible members of society, not vultures who want to screw their 'customers' for their last dime. All of my 'conservative' friends who also happen to be 'values voters' need to apply their values to the artificial person that is the corporation. And why does just the military person get releif from this (I am a military person, so put doen your spears, weenies!)? Every last citizen has the right not to get screwed, not just people in the military.
It would be helpful if articles like these concluded with what consumers can meaningfully do to stop being caught in corruption. For example, demand to read the standard form sales contract papers -- every one of them in the packet -- by taking them home to read them first and before any negotiating begins. When dealers get a hold of customers, the railroading begins. And since they sell cars everyday and I don't buy one except once every few years -- I make sure I have every advantage before walking into the showroom.
["So let's make the same comparisons, same years, same source, but drop individual contributions from the total."]
why on earth would you do that, except to obscure the full picture of which groups are contributing in what amounts to the politicians?
if you want to look at pacs, fine, add pacs' contributions to the TOTAL, and see what we come up with
{but pitch the 'leadership pacs' from the business & industry considerations, because:
"Leadership PACs are formed by members of Congress, candidates and political notables...politicians use leadership PACs to help promote their own ambitions"
opensecrets.org}
lawyers and law firms, including BOTH individual and pac contributions are still WAY out in front of anybody else.
they're still far-and-away the biggest money player in DC, and if you don't think the amount of influence lawyers've been buying with the Democratic wing of our one ruling party is significant, then you must not think the amount of influence corporations have been buying with the Republican wing is relevant either.
would that be a correct assumption?
i liked the open-minded part, suggesting 'tuning out' a source because it's shown you an inconvenient truth about one of the two party 'wings', or an uncomfortable one you didn't want to hear, or don't particularly want to have people considering.
"documented facts can be ignored if they come from someone ready to question the motivations of Democrats"
does that sum up the position you were taking?
yeah.
i'm ready and willing to question their actions AND their motivations. i've done it, and in so doing discovered that, no matter what they said, they weren't 'there for Me'.
having questioned them and not liking the conclusions accounts for the fact that i left their party to become a libertarian-leaning independent voter some years back.
["In response to Say Whats post.Are these all cumulative contributions since 2004 or just the trial lawyers total?And if the trial lawyers have given so much more than all of the corporations then why are the arbritration clauses becoming so prevalent?They aren't a very effective lobbying group."]
yes, they're all cumulative totals from 2004 on, as you could have seen by following the provided link.
i have no interest in playing the apples-to-oranges deceipt game.
maybe arbitration is still prevalent because it isn't high on the lawyers list of things to lobby the politicians for, not representing an area of THEIR interests where they stand to make or lose the most through government action, or inaction.
just my guess.
if you don't think lawyers are a successful lobbying group, try reading and understanding one of congress' hundreds-of-pages-long bills, and see if anyone without a law degree could decipher it.
politicians write laws in such a manner to keep lawyers fully employed in a very, very lucritive business, and they return the favor
True Americans wait to buy something until they can afford it. Buy with cash. But from another American. Avoid the corporations altogether. Nothing will break the backs of these business citizens (corporations have the rights, but not the responsibility of citizens, by law) quicker. I'm not rich. I've always done it that way. Never had a problem yet. The government of We the People does need to step in and stop this nonsense. Forcing people off their constitutional right as a corporate group is nothing short of a monopoly. Corporations should always be subservient to the People.
It took me almost 3 years and something like 15,000 dollars to pay off my second-hand 12k hoopty, and the car peeps aren't about to let go of a military paycheck once they get their hooks into it.
But, car loans are just another form of lending, and, as we've seen over the past several years, the lending industry at-large seems to have 'issues' these days...
buy a 1k beater for cash...Chilton's and a set of tools will set you back another 150. Knowledge is power, truth will set you free...
