It isn’t that Tamara Dietrich complains about payday lenders. Lots of uneducated or ideological journalists attack the industry with unsupported accusations or misrepresentations. However, her article in the Daily Press shows a staggering level of delusion and, frankly, outright stupidity that she deserves to be hung out to dry.
The story she blathers on about is that Riverside Health System’s President decided to collateralize low-interest loans from his company’s credit unions to its members, with the intent to encourage them to stop using payday loans.
Dietrich is gushing about how wonderful this plan is. And she goes on and on about how naughty payday lenders are, and how Virginia should have banned them.
Well, it is a wonderful plan. Of course, what Dietrich fails to mention is that the only reason the credit union is making these loans is because they have no risk! Riverside’s President is backing all of the loans with his personal wealth.
And if Dietrich understood anything at all about how markets work, she’d know that banning payday loans only make things worse for consumers. They are forced to other, more expensive options. Riverside employees just happen to be lucky enough to have a boss who cares and is doing something.
But Dietrich, who I’m adding to the Payday Loan Opponent Dunk Tank, doesn’t stop there. See, she doesn’t let the facts get in the way of her having made up her mind. She accuses payday lenders of “shrugging off the law”, and accuses them of evading restrictions made on the payday loan statutes to continue making loans under other statutes.
Ms. Dietrich, could you please stop being an idiot? I mean, really. Nobody is evading anything. Payday lenders are operating strictly under the laws available to them in the state of Virginia. People use these loans for a reason — they help. People return to them for a reason — they help. For the millionth time, consumers are smart. They know what they are doing and are capable of making the choices that are best for them.
They don’t need your help to “protect” them. Unless, of course, since you are so very fond of Riverside’s plan, how about if you put up your own personal wealth to further collateralize these loans over at Riverside? Why not? After all, it’s such a great plan with no risk, right? You are so quick to want to put payday lenders out of business, and cost Virginia thousands of jobs while restricting consumer credit, why don’t you do something other than blather on about things you clearly know nothing about.
Mr. Fulmer is quite right. The payday loan industry welcomes competition. He is secure in making that remark because he knows that if any other viable source of short-term credit could succeed in the marketplace, it would have popped up in the 20 years since payday loans came into being. If the best that the market can do is to have a private individual risk his own money to collateralize low-interest loans, then why haven’t we seen that all over the country? Why haven’t we seen this from George Soros?
And why, Ms. Dietrich, why haven’t we seen it from you?
Or should we just assume you are another uneducated, ideological hypocrite who has no clue what she is talking about?
4 users commented in " Payday Loans: Tamara Dietrich Has Lost Her Mind "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackThis is a needed service! The total cost of a payday loan is disclosed to consumers on signs in stores and in loan agreements. There are no hidden charges! Payday loan opponents and the misinformed media know very little about payday lending. An APR is not an appropriate measure for short-term loans. This is not how a payday loan works! I have never read or heard of anyone placing an APR on a one-time NSF charge or a late fee on a credit card. If they were looked at the same way, the APR would triple the one time fee of a payday loan. I think one needs to get the facts straight before writing these articles. Most of the material I’ve read about payday lending is far from the truth. It’s no wonder the public is confused.
Thank you for this rarely seen defense of the payday loan industry.
CFSA is the national trade association representing responsible payday lenders. With membership representing more than half of the payday advance outlets nationally, CFSA promotes laws and regulations that protect consumers while preserving their access to credit options. The association also works on behalf of members to support and encourage responsible industry practices.
CFSA supports regulations that ensure the product is used responsibly and are doing our part to encourage responsible use. We want customers to use payday advances wisely and we want the service to be a solution for individuals who need low-dollar, short-term credit. To that end, CFSA member companies have taken a significant step forward in our ongoing commitment to responsible lending.
Customers deserve choices and do not want others making financial choices for them.
Adults should be given information and be allowed to make a decision about what financial products work best for their families and their individual situations.
Taking away choices does not help consumers. Research shows consumers are harmed when payday lending is no longer an option.
Let’s just take it as a given that the Riverside credit union program is perfect. What the Congresswoman fails to realize but the author so poignantly addresses is that this credit union is an exception to the rule. If the payday lenders are banned, who will serve the overwhelming need. Banks generally do not give $100 loans and there are only a handful of credit unions who make small loans. What is also not addressed is the actual out of pocket costs associated with the credit union loan and the payday lender loan. If there is even one application fee or membership fee rolled into a small loan given by a credit union, it is already a much more expensive option for the consumer.
I agree that the public is very confused about topics that are important and affect many of us. However, the public maintains an unconditional trust and belief of media and media outlets. They trust that the media as an entity has their best interest at heart no matter the subject. These same media outlets have roots in special interest groups and biased sources which in turn gets presented to its audience. It then becomes our responsibility to separate fact from fiction instead of taking a stance based off of what we hear or read initially.
Leave A Reply