What do you work there Joe...it is a scam that is only partially shared with the consumer. Why else would you advocate for this to be ok...want your children or family members to try one?

I want my children and family to be free to do business with vendors they choose to do business with under terms that are agreed upon upon both parties.

Why do you seek to stop two people from doing business with one another under terms that both find agreeable?

It's no different than paying for any other service -- you are expected on a certain date to have the funds available. If you go to the vet for a $300 checkup for your dog, do they just let you sit around and not pay for the service (especially if you pay via check and it bounces)? Any business who is owed money wants to be paid.

The reason this is short-term credit is because there are less regulations and less questions. If you want due-diligence, go to a real bank and get a real loan. Problem is, if you don't have ability to pay, you get declined and now you have no $$. If you want some $$ where they don't ask many questions, this is what you are left with.

Companies like this will stay in business as long as people keep using them. They aren't meant as a means to get from paycheck to paycheck (but too many people do such).

Could you please show the language...I'd be happy to change my mind? Can you prove terms are changed "at will" - where's the contract? If what you are saying is true and you have evidence, it seems to me that you have plenty of evidence to contact the Attorney General and press charges?

..."This is a predatory business run by predators to milk the poor and ignorant, plain and simple. Ban these things."
That's what got the current administration elected.

misleading and fraudulent "agreements" and it is the customers fault? no. you are mistaken. And if you are not, I have a bridge you might be interesting in buying.

Isn't it sad people have sued McDonalds for making them fat and won?

We live in a society where you do something wrong, you sue for it or blame someone else.

The problem is, a lot of these people view Payday loans as a means to get paycheck to paycheck. It's meant as a one-time expense, not to pay for your everyday life-style (bar tabs, etc.).

Some people simply do not wish to be free. It's sad. With every bad thing that happens to them due to their own choices - they will point to someone else. This means they will never grow, never learn, never improve their lot in life.

If you want a better life and you don't want to be a victim, you must look inside yourself first. You must examine every decision and make it your habit to hold yourself accountable before seeking answers elsewhere.

None of this is to say that bad things don't simply happen to people - only that they don't "just happen" as often as most people believe they do.

I apologize if these truths seem difficult to some. I live my life this well...it's working for me...and for my children. Be free...be accountable to yourself. Simply IMHO.

These loans were ILLEGAL here till a few years ago. No one could use them.

Selling alcohol was once against the law as well - but they we realized that willing buyers and willing sellers should be free to conduct business as they like.

We should provide protections and regulations against the use of force, fraud, and monopoly. If a business is using any of these tactics, they should be brought to justice. I've not yet seen any evidence of this in any posting so far.

The problem is that these short-term lenders do not have to perform due diligence. If they did, they would simply become a bank. They would need bank statements, W-2's, credit checks, etc. If these lenders became like this, people who need "quick money" would no longer get access quickly.

People get caught up in the "get money fast" slogan, and government regulations do not force the appropriate questions into whether or not the recipient will have significant room to repay. Again, if they did, they would become a bank, and these people would likely be denied.

The question that really needs to be asked -- How much better/worse would these people be without a payday loan? Even if they get caught up in a crappy cycle (which I don't agree with) does it prolong their ability to provide a life to their family? Does it keep the heat on? The water? The electricity?

Most people who start a business benefit from people and their needs. If people didn't have needs, they wouldn't buy anything. They wouldn't go to gas stations, pay ridiculous cable bills to watch TV, etc.

Ted; Payday lenders operate under a special "carve out" in the general laws for check cashers...section 19-14.4-4. These loans are defined as "deferred deposits," and because of this exception in state law, they're able to charge a 260% APR. The fee amount of $10 for every $100 borrowed, for two weeks=260% APR. According to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), these companies are required to post annual percentage rates.

Thanks Stephen, that is good to know. If anyone is interested here is the full law that Stephen mentioned.

§ 19-14.4-4 Fees for services. – No licensee shall:

(1) Charge check-cashing fees in excess of three percent (3%) of the face amount of the check, or five dollars ($5.00), whichever is greater, if the check is the payment of any kind of state public assistance or federal social security benefit;

(2) Charge check-cashing fees for personal checks in excess of ten percent (10%) of the face amount of the personal check or five dollars ($5.00), whichever is greater; or

(3) Charge check-cashing fees in excess of five percent (5%) of the face amount of the check or five dollars ($5.00), whichever is greater, for all other checks.

(4) Charge deferred deposit transaction fees in excess of ten percent (10%) of the amount of funds advanced.

I'm not sure why everyone is so opposed to limiting bad loan practice. This isn't about stopping people from harming themselves. It's about stopping businesses from harming the consumer. We have TONS of laws like this that protect consumers from injurious business practices. Just to name a few: lead paint bans, SEC disclosures, anti-discrimination laws, tradesman licensing requirements, antitrust laws, anti-pyramid scheme laws, FDA certification for certain drugs, etc. Should we abandon those laws as well because, you know, caveat emptor? If those consumer protection laws are OK, then why not this one?

You can't force them to be smart but you can provide some protection for those less fortunate than yourself.....most of the people who use these places have a very limited understanding of what is happening and are truly taken advantage of.......they need limits set by government because when they go and screw someone they end up on welfare

Raul you are talking about choices you make when you have money.....payday loans are for those who have nothing and little chance at getting better, most are extremely poor and uneducated, they need the help of all of us capable of reading this blog

The issue for these people comes down to one simple question: What is the alternative? I will never disagree with the fact that this is a business meant to make money off of the poor and unfortunate. That is why they are in business.

If you are Sally Joe, does the payday loan provide a service? Does it continue to allow you to support your family? Does it pay your bills? Is your water on? Your electricity? Your heat?

If there was another alternative for them, don't you think they would take it?

I don't endorse payday loans persay ... I just don't think there are other "positive" alternatives for these people, and if there were, they wouldn't be using payday loans.

you miss the point. They LIE and change the terms after you get your loan. and they were illegal until our legislature legalized them and allowed them to do just that. You completely miss the entire point. which, smacks of classism and even racism.

I didn't miss the point, I just don't agree with it. I assume you have proof of the lies and terms being changed? If the contract is signed, the signee has a copy. I don't see how that can be manipulated. The bottom line is you are responsible for your own actions, regardless of the level of comprehension. You sign an agreement , you own it. If you don't like the terms, move on.

So you must be in favor of loan sharking because that's what these amount to.

Free market rules right?

@ DownTown, I dont care about loan sharking, but if there is somebody willing to do business with one, it is fine by me. It doesn't affect me in the least and nor does it affect you.
Do you really think there aren't any loan sharks? I suppose you think there is no organized crime, illegal gambling joints or pot brokers.

Wrong Dan D. If the business is in violation of the law, it is your responsibility to reprot them to the proper authorities. If you do not then you are as guilty as the business violating the law, because you won't report them. Do you allow criminals to rob you and sit back and say oh well it happens and take the loss?

If you think there are no whore houses in RI then you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

First the Legislature allowed payday loans when they were not allowed by law then they made an exception to the laws on usurious lending rates.

Maybe you are in favor of allowing bodily harm for collection?

Rhode Island is the only State in New England that allows these loans. Where is Ray Patriarca when he's needed?

That doesn't make sense. What I said was don't do it if you don't like it or can't figure it out. What your saying is stupid people should be able to use the all encompassing defense of "well I didn't know"..like the AAA drivers of the year who drive with their turn signal on like it's a left hand turn around the globe..victims of their own stupidity

PS. Quite frankly when I saw the one open in Warren on Metacom, I did not think it would last long. I remember these things around every military base in the 70's until they were outlawed from dealing with military personnel.

They are legal Loan sharking and if you had a friend who was in debt to a loan shark, do you think the Government should protect you and get money back from the mob. That’s what some of you are saying it seems. Think about that as there is no difference other than the fact the State made this legal knowing full well what it does.

Look at the money now wasted on so called Re-Hab for gambling, well expanding it even more. I laugh when I see the signs at the Casino's to dial such and such a number to get help, then I get mad because I am paying for the darn help of people who can't control themselves. This mentality of people who can’t swim and jump in the deep end of the pool because they know a life guard is there needs to stop being cuddled. The consequences of your personal actions are your own.

First Downtown, we are talking about a private business, and that one in Warren on Metacom is called, "Advance America" Payday Loan' it is a national chain of these places and is the exact business being discussed.

The BCWA is a government entity not a private business, your comparison is laughable. Taking a loan on your paycheck is not a physical product. It is giving a product you have, ie your check that you earned as collateral. No comparison to a government company I own. By your anology paying taxes is the same as this. Not a realistic comparison either.

Schools, same thing, that are mandated by the Constitution and the right of all citizens for grades 0-12 and a mandate by law for all citizens to send their children too. No choice at all.

This business is a choice period; and a bad one for a citizen to make in my opinion. Self-responsibility is the problem of why these businesses can thrive and the fact that the State even made it legal, after so many years of it being illegal. Just another way to keep people dependent and in poverty to stay on government programs, with no why to advance out of them. Again you cannot legislate stupid out of society. You sure can legislate people to keep them dependent on government though. That is what this does in my opinion.

Same as anything else the government creates; if enough of these people who use them complained to have the laws changed on how they run, they would put them out of business.

The answer being given here by most is to have people take responsibility for their actions and not whine about a choice they make on their own to be foolish enough to fall for a legal scam. Has to do with who in the end also pays for it, besides the person who uses it. That would be the taxpayer, when these foolish people end up in the so called social safety net, which is nothing of the kind.

No saying get out I see in my post. Just a reason able answer to stupidity of using these legal businesses. The comparison I used on banks is the same. Getting loans from banks and not reading the contract you sign is insanity. But it is your responsibility to do that not mine or any other citizen. There is no such thing as "too big to fail". Nor is there a such thing as, oops I was a stupid individual to do this and the government needs to bail me out at the expence of taxpayers.

For some this type of business actual works if it is done in a smart manner. I.E. used in an emergency and payed back under the terms in full. If you are living pay day to pay day, you are doing something wrong in your finances. That also is your own personal choice period.

"Schools, same thing, that are mandated by the Constitution and the right of all citizens for grades 0-12 and a mandate by law for all citizens to send their children too. No choice at all."

Schools or education are not mentioned or mandated in the Constitution, to the best of my knowledge. Could you cite the amendment or article please?

"Same as anything else the government creates; if enough of these people who use them complained to have the laws changed on how they run, they would put them out of business."

It would be nice if that is how government worked. Money drives politics, not citizens... Unfortunately.

You pawn a $1,000 dollar ring and get $200 on the condition you pay it back in 30 days or they keep the ring. You sign a contract to do this knowing the penalty.

You default on the contract you lose the ring. You get a loan from a bank for a car or a house, and default or make a late payment; You are either losing the car or house, a reasonable penalty. No difference then this business. Banks depend on the payments to make money for their stock holders, and in this case the owner of the business is the stock holder.

I do not default on my water, or any other bill, because I make sure they are paid first. If I cannot afford it I do what ever I can to make sure they are paid on time. If that means I must get a 2nd job or do with out other amenities in the family or life stye then you do it period. Government is not a business!!! It is a nessisary requirement for any civil society period.

Sorry so long, but obviously, you needed a more in depth explaination I guess ;-}

Ted it come from; "14th Amendment guarantees "equal protection of the laws", since all States have mandates for Public education, Under the 14th Amendment the Supreme Court has ruled many times that it must be applied equaly to all citizens. Therfore the Constitution up hodls the rights of education. Most famous case was Brown vs the board of education, when Blacks were denied the same right to education as whites.

If anyone knows of a State that does not mandate basic education, I would love to know which one it is. Far as I know it is mandated in all 50 States and territories.

The Constitution does mandate equal protection under the law. I'm not arguing that Jack. You said "Schools, same thing, that are mandated by the Constitution and the right of all citizens for grades 0-12 and a mandate by law for all citizens to send their children too. No choice at all." They aren't mandated by the Constitution at all. Equal treatment under the law is mandated by the Constitution. If RI changed it's law tomorrow would the Constitution have any say? You should look into San Antonio Independent School District v Rodriguez. The SCOTUS said there was not a fundamental right under the constitution. Per the SCOTUS: " Though education is one of the most important services performed by the State, it is not within the limited category of rights recognized by this Court as guaranteed by the Constitution."

I believe you are correct that all states mandate some form of education but the majority of them (I counted 35) only do so until the age of 16 which is not K-12 like you stated above. RI for example: "Every child who has completed or will have completed six (6) years of life on or before September 1 of any school year and has not completed sixteen (16) years of life shall regularly attend some public day school during all the days and hours that the public schools are in session in the city or town in which the child resides."

Ted, I did forget about the right to opt out at age 16 which is in most States. But the rest of my post stands as I cannot forsee any State sunddenly saying they will no longer provide public education, and most States have it in their Constitution in any case.

It is a right that the States have, as all rights not expressly in the Constitution are reserved for the States. Having said that the Federal government has found a loop hole in denying Federal aid if they do not follow guide lines from the department of education. Personally I think that is wrong and a violation of States rights.

I also think the recent ruling on Obamacare may effect that. The Court said that the Fed could not force State to set up exchanges by denying Federal Funds if they don't. I suspect some lawyers will sue on that concerning Education. It is a fact that many of the Department of education Mandates have destroyed School system across the Country forcing the increase in taxes enormously to meet these mandates.

This however is a subject for a another blog for sure. It is complex and very divisive because so many do not know how much the Fed government is involved in education. Again in violation in my opinion, infringing on States rights.

As well as the States cannot have any law that Violates the US Constitution, so defacto, if it is Constitutional it is in the Constitution to me under the 14th Amendment. The Constitution is the last word on law. ;-}

I should have Stated it as mandated to age 16 but provided till 12 grade. My Bad lol

I would also point out that the Founder were very supportive of public education of the populace, especially Jefferson. Many of them Stated and new that in order for a Free Society to evolve, education was paramount.

I'm not arguing that states don't have laws mandating education Jack. It's just not in the Constitution like you stated. That's all. Read San Antonio Independent School District v Rodriguez, you'd love it. Property Taxes, Equal Treatment under the Law, and Education all in one case, you'd love it. You said it best "It is a right that the States have, as all rights not expressly in the Constitution are reserved for the States."

"I suspect some lawyers will sue on that concerning Education." I suspect some lawyers will sue because the sky is blue and it's Tuesday.

Ted@ I agree on the lawyers lol. I could have listed proably 100's of cases by the ACLU on the rights to education that have been won every single time. My point as I said is that if it is held up by the Constitution it is Constitutional and therfore part of the Constitution. Anything that set a Constitutional Precident is part of the Constitution until it is overturned or Amended. Granted my take on it, but also pretty much historically proven ;-}.

I did read that case breif, but it is one the distribution of funds and discrimination. I know they said no fundimental right in the 14th. However the thing with that is the right under the 14th exist only if the States have a madated law for public education. So for me that case is not really relevent in that it was about funding disparity, which also has been sued for in this State for the same reason. I think it was Centralfalls and I believe Bristol/Warren tried it also when Sundun did not follow through with all the funding for the regionalization, but still funded other districts fully that were not regionalized. Not sure but seem to remember that happening and we lost, since distribution of funding is the purview of the General Assembly and redress is through them not the courts I think was the ruling.

Sadly Education is so screwed up in this State and Country. I have a plan but it would never happen, it makes to much sense I think lol. Posted it before but I think we are getting way off topic lol.

Should read "ACLU on the rights to education that have been won almost every single time."

" I could have listed proably 100's of cases by the ACLU on the rights to education that have been won every single time." But you didn't...

You seem to have a unique view on the Constitution. I can eat ice cream just like you. We're are equally protected in our right to eat ice screen. To say it's part of the Constitution because of the equal protection clause is kind of out there though and that seems to be what you're saying.

I didn't figure you for such a big ACLU fan Jack. ;)

Ted@ Not a fan of the ACLU by a long shot, but sometimes they do get it right, but most times are just breaking the banks of States to make money now and have lost their true mandate a long time ago in my opinion..

My view I do not think is out there, because any law that is passed, must pass the Constitutional test. If it is Constitutional then that proves the Constitution, which is the "Law of the land" as they say, is part and parcel the same. I see no other way to look at it. I may not be explaining it as well as I am thinking it, but oh well, times have changed and so has this senior brain lol.

The Constitution is the document that confirms whether a law is legal, bottom line is it not?

I thought I could write a lot Jack. Where do you find the time and energy? ;)

Your original statement was "Schools, same thing, that are mandated by the Constitution and the right of all citizens for grades 0-12 and a mandate by law for all citizens to send their children too." I disagree that they are mandated by the Constitution. Mandated being the key word there. The Constitution says if you have something it has to be equal for everyone but that is far from a mandate on education.

OK Ted@ How about this.

Constitution of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations

ARTICLE XII

OF EDUCATION

Section 1. Duty of general assembly to promote schools and libraries. -- The diffusion of knowledge, as well as of virtue among the people, being essential to the preservation of their rights and liberties, it shall be the duty of the general assembly to promote public schools and public libraries, and to adopt all means which it may deem necessary and proper to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education and public library services.

Section 2. Perpetual school fund. -- The money which now is or which may hereafter be appropriated by law for the establishment of a permanent fund for the support of public schools, shall be securely invested and remain a perpetual fund for that purpose.

;-}

Notice (perpetual fund ) and I see no need to post the laws governing said public education mandates in this State to age 16. lol.

Nuff said? lol

Come on now Jack, you know we have been talking about the US Constitution here.

That's past the tower isn't it? No chance...

Nope never been there and have voted against gambling everytime and will continue to do that, until they allow the indians to have the same rights the State lets itself have.

Not to logical to assume all people are as you say either, or that you are the only one voted against it. newport voted Down expansion in their town by the way.

Didn't know all people in poverty are on Oxygen and smoker either, who knew lol.

I've never been to Twin River in my life but what i really want to know is can i get a payday loan if,in fact,i have no payday at all?

In this State nelson, you probably can lol.

Damn,when does my ship come in?

Ship will come in when this State figures out that tourism is a lost cause and only produces low wage jobs, depending on ship to visit by the way. is that not Ironic lol.

Ahhh contrare Teb, No State Constitution can have anything the does not conform to the US constitution though can it lol.

We are a "Representative Republic" with a guiding principle and law of the US Constitution, and nothing can violate that unless it is Unconstitutional correct?

So anything that is a Constitutional law is within the scope and purview of the US Constitution and therefore one and the same. If someone disagree's with the Constitution there is a little thing in the 1st Amendment that allows redress to change it.

So it matters not what law is passed or Constitution in any State as long as it conforms to the US Constitution it is the same as the law of the land. Though I will admit not all States are required to follow every States laws, because of States rights. We however are talking about every single State that has a mandate for Education, which also happens to be, well all 50 of them ;-}.

On the other hand Ted I am taking a nap and will dwell on your response later if I have the time lol.