Bill Me Later®; Not a scam but..

Okay, my wife signed up to use Bill Me Later®, a service of Ebay/Paypal to pay for an auction. The terms were no interest and no payment for 6 months. If the balance is not paid in the 6 month time frame, then you will owe the accrued interest at 20% interest rate. It was easy to use and the terms were great. We paid off the purchase in 5 1/2 months and it didn't accrue any interest. I then opened my own account and bought a $100+ item and got the same deal.

Here's the rub. There is a minimum charge for  the 6 month no payment no interest on the first charge or later Special financing; usually include a $99-199 minimum. I added another purchase to the account of $40 and I am now paying a minimum payment of $35 @ month and being charged 20% interest (well that's if the balance goes over a month, otherwise you still get charged a minimum $2 interest). If you read the fine print, it is what you agreed to. However their advertisements are a bit misleading. Take a look at this

..up to 6 months to pay.

With so much advertising about the 6 month no payment no interest, there is very little info that this is a promotional offer; after your first purchase, additional charges using Bill Me Later®  may be at 20% interest credit card. While ebay/PayPal promotes Bill Me Later® as Secure, fast, easy...checkout is a breeze, anyone that uses PayPal should know thay you can attach a credit card and purchase items through the credit card at what could be a much lower interest rate than 20%. Further, Bill Me Later® is definitely set up to be computer paid. Bill Me Later® does not mail it's statements, but a link is sent by email where the account holder has to log in to see their statement; for some this will mean it will be easily forgotten. There have also been numerous anecdotal complaints that mailed payments have disappeared or applied weeks after the payment was mailed, incurring a late charge (I saw nothing to substantiate this, and it may just be the realization that they have been bumped to 20% interest, but it is included just so users of  Bill Me Later® pay attention to the billing.

What I have also discovered is the Bill Me Later® logo in Ebay auctions tend to disappear after you sign up. Then you have no way of knowing if your purchase can be paid with Bill Me Later® or not. Bill Me Later® seems to have remedied this by allowing Bill Me Later® by default on most auctions (usually still not available for international purchases).  What aggravates me the most is the name; "Bill Me Later". The name implies a differed payment, not the normal "within the billing cycle" that is common with all credit cards. Further, if you don't catch on the subsequent charges are without the promotional billing, you will find if you don't make the minimum payment (usually $35), then a $35 late charges will be assessed each month and they could really pile up over 6 months

So, if Bill Me Later® a scam? No, but it can just be misleading and like anything else you need to read the fine print before you use the service.

The High Tech Lynching Starts

It’s almost amusing watching the “high tech lynching” of Herman Cain start; almost. There is still the issue of a bunch of white folks questioning the blackness of a Presidential candidate. The MSNBC Martin Bashir's (a person of Arabic heritages) show had on a Democrat strategist and MSNBC analyst named Karen Finney; who is also a white woman. Coming out of this woman’s mouth was some of the most vile and racists remarks I have heard in a long time. One exchange went like this.

"One of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy," Finney said. "I think he giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because they think he's a black man who knows his place. I know that's harsh, but that's how it sure seems to me."

"Thank you for spelling that out," Bashir responded.

What is most telling is this exchange is the charge that Cain does not know his place, which the Liberals believe is with the Democrat Party. It has been said in Conservative corners, the Liberals tolerate blacks and they endure conservatives; but they cannot abide a successful, independent-minded black who dares to step out of line and reject the enslavement of the Plantation Party. There is no class of people more openly loathed by the Democrat Party than a black conservative.

We have seen it before and it will only get worse if Cain remains the GOP candidate to beat. Further the Democrat Party and the Liberal Press will also continue to make the racism charge against Conservatives simply because they disagree with President Obama's policies, while their racism is in the open and determined by the content of their character.

Edit 10.31.2011

Well what did I saw? The Democrats have always portrayed successful blacks as having uncontrolled sexual impulses; the attacks on Clarence Thomas where a travesty. Now we have the Politico reporting that Herman Cain sexually harassed two women employees 15 years ago. The complaints were described as overtly sexual but suggestive behavior, that made them angry. As is typical in the business world, CEO's know you can't prove a negative. Even though the investigation showed that Cain had done nothing wrong, the women were most likely dispensed of with a pay off, as the Cain would certainly not want them around after such an incident.

In a follow-up comment one of the writers of the Politico story seems to mock himself with innuendo:

Politico reporter Jonathan Martin, who co-wrote their article on Herman Cain, told MSNBC this morning that he just isn't "going to get into the details" of what Cain allegedly said, did or "gestured." Martin cites an incident that may or may not have happened where Cain may or may not have invited a woman up to his hotel room. Cain's chief of staff said this morning that these charges are questionable at best. Relevant transcript below:

Politico's Jonathan Martin: "And also, what actually happened to these women as well, we want to be sensitive to that, too. It includes both verbal and physical gestures. "These women felt uncomfortable, and they were unhappy about their treatment, and they complained to both colleagues and senior officials. In one case it involved, I think, inviting a woman up to a hotel room of Cain's on the road … We're just not going to get into the details of exactly what happened with these women beside what's in the story.

It should be noted that when more brazen reports were made about candidate Bill Clinton, where numerous women actually reported they had been raped by the future President, the Democratic machine tracked down these women and did all it could to discredit and besmirch the women. That is the difference between Conservatives and Liberals; Conservatives believe in human decency.

Why Liberals Have to Lie Part 5; Occupy Wall Street

I write this as a response to the question, In what way am I (conservative) (liberal)?

I still think it's interesting how we use the term Liberal in the US. In England, Liberal is defined as a love of liberty and is based on the dictates of John Locke, Edmund Burke and the US Constitution. And what we call the Liberal party in the US is the Labor Party. Using these labels I think better describes the views of those in the US and explains that there is a difference between Conservatism and Constitutionalists. The Conservative party is represented by the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. The Liberal Party (sometimes called Liberal Conservatism) is based on limited government, self governance and economic individualism. The Labor Party is center left democratic socialist party, that believes in typical socialists policies such as public ownership of key industries, government intervention in the economy, redistribution of wealth, increased rights for workers, the welfare state, publicly-funded healthcare and education. In the US, there has always been such a stigma attached to socialism, that socialists have had to re-name themselves and finally settled on Liberal.

The following are more letters to the editor and responses in the Santa Cruz Sentinel. The first is my response to Amy Goodman’s Liberal rant warning President Obama that if he doesn’t pay attention the Occupy Wall Street group, horrors of horrors, we will return to the policies of the Bush era.

My response printed 10/18/2011: It shouldn't surprise me but it still does. Amy Goodman's article "A new Bush Era or push era," has facts that seems to have been simply been made up in the mind of another liberal. First the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations simply shows that in any big city you can get 1,000-2,000 mush-brained college students to demonstrate against "The Man;" is anyone really surprised by that? But the liberals have had movement envy, ever since the tea party movement took hold of America. Goodman also states that the arrests of 700 demonstrators in New York was "one of the largest mass arrests in U.S. history."

I'm sorry but the statement is laughable. The arrest of 700 people is not a pimple on the butt of an elephant when it comes to mass arrests in the U.S., such as in the race riots across the U.S. in 1965/68: New York, 3,776 arrested; Detroit, 7,200 arrested; Watts 3,438 arrested; and let's not forget the Rodney King riots, 1992, L.A., 11,000 arrested. So I guess you can't blame President Obama for saying whatever sounds good and making up the facts as he goes along; after all, he's a liberal and it's in his blood.

This was printed on the same day

What Occupy Wall Street really wants

Anyone who can't understand what the protesters want changed simply has a different set of values from the rest of us. For example, OWS supporters want a change in the tax code that would help reduce inequality. Conservatives think the income gap is just fine. OWS wants workers to be able to join unions and bargain collectively. Conservatives think union busting is a necessary part of running a business. OWS wants single family foreclosures stopped and worked out so families will not be thrown out. Conservatives think most of those people shouldn't have a house in the first place. OWS wants a return to one man, one vote, everyone with a right to vote, government, not one sold to the highest bidder. Conservatives think our plutocracy is the natural result of creative capitalism. And we could go on. The place from which conservatives view society is so far removed from reality, it's no wonder they have no sense of what should be changed to allow average Americans to live more productive and secure lives. OWS simply wants conservatives to get informed, become aware, quit turning their heads.

Howard F. Sosbee, Scotts Valley

My Response: Howard Sosbee is half right; Conservatives want the tax code simplified, while it still allows 47% who don’t pay any Fed taxes at all. Conservatives simply don’t want it mandatory to join unions and that workers simply have the right to work. The foreclosure debacle is the result of social engineering by Democrats, directing banks to sell mortgages to people that obviously could not afford them. Obama’s reaction was to make it more profitable to banks to foreclose on a house than restructure the loan. The plutocracy is the result of the best government money can buy; lets not forget Obama received more contributions from the fat cat bankers and Wall Street investors for the 2008 election than any other candidate in history; and he’s trying to up that record for the 2012 election. Conservatives know that no matter how compassionate and fair radical redistribution of wealth and socialism look; it always ends very badly. Take a good look at what’s going on in Europe right now.

This was an earlier piece my one of Santa Cruz liberal letter writers; printed 10/13/2011.

Give America a good laugh, Perry

What does Republican presidential wannabe Rick Perry mean when he says President Obama's administration is socialist? The tea party has been using socialist as a derogatory and defamatory catchword since they began their claptrap three years ago. I've never heard any of these populist insurgents say exactly what they mean when they denigrate the president by calling him a socialist. Now, Republican front-runner Rick Perry has latched on to socialist and is parroting the same corny lines as his tea party friends. I know perfectly well what socialist means, and it is not in the context that Perry and the tea party use it. Tell us, Mr. Perry, explain to us, what you mean by the word "socialist" as you relate it to President Obama and his administration. America needs a good laugh.

Ron Lowe, Santa Cruz

My response: Ron Lowe asks a good question; how is President Obama a Socialists. Technically he is a Fascist (or Corporatist), which is a form of socialism (adapted by the German Nazi party but not defined by it). Unlike classic socialism however, fascism allows for the ownership of property, but controls business and the means of production through a corporate structure and regulation. Further like all socialism, the rights of individuals is sacrificed for the rights of the many; referred to as collectivism. ObamaCare is classic socialism; where individual medical plans are done away with, instead you have the creation of one size fits all health plans using government panels to determine the quality of care allowed. President Obama has imposed some 75 major regulations that have cost business and the American people over $40 billion. More troubling is President Obama’s Rule by Regulation where he bye passes congress to implement policies, that constitutionally only the legislature is empowered to do. With fascism expect a government restructuring where labor unions will become an arm of the government and Presidential Czars will control every aspect of your life from what you eat, to how much profit businesses can make. That Mr Lowe is how the President is a socialist.