AUTO SALES AND ADVERTISING
TOPS IN Consumer Complaints for 2009 and 2008
So why were autos exempted from the new Consumer Protection Agency?
It is very troubling to see another example of Congress obviously legislating not in the public interest but for the benefit of the Special Interests, in this case the auto dealers. One has to wonder what type of people are these Congressional people?
If there was ever a consumer group that needed protection from their suppliers, it is auto buyers who need protection from their suppliers, the auto dealers.
The 2009 Consumer Complaint Survey Report was conducted by the Consumer Federation of America, the National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators and the North American Consumer Protection Investigators and is their 15th report on top consumer complaints. The latest results are based on a survey of 33 state, county, and city agencies from 18 states on the most common complaints received from January 2009 through December 2009.
Top Types of Consumer Complaints for 2009
1. Auto: Misrepresentations in advertising or sales of new and used cars; lemons; faulty repairs; leasing and towing disputes. Also No. 1 in 2008.
2. Credit/Debt: Billing and fee disputes; mortgage-related fraud; credit repair; debt relief services; predatory lending; illegal or abusive debt collection tactics. Up from No. 3 in 2008.
3. Home Improvement/Construction: Shoddy work; failure to start or complete the job. Down from No. 2 in 2008.
4. Utilities: Service problems or billing disputes with phone, cable, satellite, Internet, electric and gas services. Also No. 4 in 2008.
5. Retail Sales: False advertising and other deceptive practices; defective merchandise; problems with rebates, coupons, gift cards and gift certificates; failure to deliver. Also No. 5 in 2008.
6. Services: Misrepresentations; shoddy work; failure to have required licenses; failure to perform. Also No. 6 in 2008.
7. Internet Sales: Misrepresentations or other deceptive practice; failure to deliver online purchases. Up from No. 9 in 2008.
8. Household Goods: Misrepresentations; failure to deliver; faulty repairs in connection with furniture or appliances. Down from No. 7 in 2008.
9. (tie) Landlord/Tenant: Unhealthy or unsafe conditions; failure to make repairs or provide promised amenities; deposit and rent disputes; illegal eviction tactics; Down from No. 8 in 2008. Home Solicitations:Misrepresentations or failure to deliver in door-to-door, telemarketing or mail solicitations; do-not-call violations. Also No. 9 in 2008.
10. Health Products/Services: misleading claims; unlicensed practitioners; failure to deliver. Also No. 10 in 2008.
Source: The 2009 Consumer Complaint Survey Report
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
WILL A HANDGUN MAKE YOUR HOME SAFER?
WILL HAVING A HANDGUN AT HOME—
MAKE YOUR FAMILY SAFER?
THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Ellen S. Alberding President of the Joyce Foundation points out, in the July 9th issue of the New York Times, a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that in 2007 in the US more than 2,000 children were killed and another 12,370 were injured by gunfire.
According to the Journal of Trauma “guns in the home are 11 times more likely to be used in suicide attempts and four times more likely to be involved in accidents than used in self defense".
The article goes on to say there is little evidence of any public health or safety benefits of privately owned guns. Keeping a gun at home puts your children at risk. During the last few days the papers have given a lot of publicity to two instances of homeowners shooting and killing home invaders. Much less attention was given to an 8 yr old shot by her13 yr old brother, or a wife shot and killed by her husband, or a 16 yr old who killed himself with his father’s gun.
Many gun owners believe they can keep guns away from children. In a recent survey of parents and children at a family health clinic in rural Alabama, 39% of the parents thought the children did not know the location of household guns, 22% thought their children had never handled a household gun. The children’s reports told a different story. The result were the same even when the guns were locked up and the parents had discussed gun safety.
Having guns in the household can make a tragic difference when teenagers get emotionally depressed or angry. Access to guns means increased suicide risk. The Harvard School of Public Healthsays most often young suicide victims use a gun belonging to a family member usually a parent. A gunshot is quick and irreversible. 90% of suicide attempts with a gun are fatal compared with 2% of drug overdoses and 3% of cutting.
Women are particularly at risk in household with guns. The Illinois Coalition against Domestic Violence, states that 300,000 women and children are subject to violence in their homes each year in the State of Illinois. Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a gun.
Dr. David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health< “where there are more guns, there is more death, more homicide, and more gun accidents". BE CAREFUL! The life you save maybe your own.
MAKE YOUR FAMILY SAFER?
THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Ellen S. Alberding President of the Joyce Foundation points out, in the July 9th issue of the New York Times, a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that in 2007 in the US more than 2,000 children were killed and another 12,370 were injured by gunfire.
According to the Journal of Trauma “guns in the home are 11 times more likely to be used in suicide attempts and four times more likely to be involved in accidents than used in self defense".
The article goes on to say there is little evidence of any public health or safety benefits of privately owned guns. Keeping a gun at home puts your children at risk. During the last few days the papers have given a lot of publicity to two instances of homeowners shooting and killing home invaders. Much less attention was given to an 8 yr old shot by her13 yr old brother, or a wife shot and killed by her husband, or a 16 yr old who killed himself with his father’s gun.
Many gun owners believe they can keep guns away from children. In a recent survey of parents and children at a family health clinic in rural Alabama, 39% of the parents thought the children did not know the location of household guns, 22% thought their children had never handled a household gun. The children’s reports told a different story. The result were the same even when the guns were locked up and the parents had discussed gun safety.
Having guns in the household can make a tragic difference when teenagers get emotionally depressed or angry. Access to guns means increased suicide risk. The Harvard School of Public Healthsays most often young suicide victims use a gun belonging to a family member usually a parent. A gunshot is quick and irreversible. 90% of suicide attempts with a gun are fatal compared with 2% of drug overdoses and 3% of cutting.
Women are particularly at risk in household with guns. The Illinois Coalition against Domestic Violence, states that 300,000 women and children are subject to violence in their homes each year in the State of Illinois. Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a gun.
Dr. David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health< “where there are more guns, there is more death, more homicide, and more gun accidents". BE CAREFUL! The life you save maybe your own.
Friday, July 9, 2010
REPUBLICANS USE HOOVER'S 1929 FISAL POLICY
REPUBLICANS ADOPT HOOVER’S 1929 FISCAL POLICY!
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS!
In 1929 Pres. Herbert Hoover was said to believe that the US had over speculated and fiscal austerity, cutting spending, would increase business confidence and bring back good times. It is amazing that the Republican Party in 2010 has resurrected, almost word for word, the failed policies of Herbert Hoover in 1929.
Even before start of the recession in 2007, the United States job market had already been performing weakly, relative both to the 1990s and to the rest of the industrialized world.
Alan Krueger, Treasury Dept Chief Economist in his testimony at the hearing, said that from 1900 to2000 the US economy added 21.7 million jobs. The economy lost 944,000 from December 1999 to December 2009, The fraction of the working-age population that reported being employed peaked at 64.7 percent in March 2000, and fell to 58.6 percent in March 2010, its lowest level since the two recessions of 1980-82, he said.
Small businesses, which shed large numbers of workers during the recession, have been particularly slow to resume hiring.
While Mr. Krueger’s remarks at the hearing were not widely reported, their implications were clear: raising taxes can support both deficit reduction and job growth. He testified that the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 “did not result in better performance in the labor market than was achieved in the 1990s, a period when government revenue increased, and the deficit was reduced and eventually eliminated.”
Whether that perspective will shape the policy debate will become clear in the coming months. In the meantime, some experts say that job creation and deficit reduction are not mutually exclusive.
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS!
In 1929 Pres. Herbert Hoover was said to believe that the US had over speculated and fiscal austerity, cutting spending, would increase business confidence and bring back good times. It is amazing that the Republican Party in 2010 has resurrected, almost word for word, the failed policies of Herbert Hoover in 1929.
Even before start of the recession in 2007, the United States job market had already been performing weakly, relative both to the 1990s and to the rest of the industrialized world.
Alan Krueger, Treasury Dept Chief Economist in his testimony at the hearing, said that from 1900 to2000 the US economy added 21.7 million jobs. The economy lost 944,000 from December 1999 to December 2009, The fraction of the working-age population that reported being employed peaked at 64.7 percent in March 2000, and fell to 58.6 percent in March 2010, its lowest level since the two recessions of 1980-82, he said.
Small businesses, which shed large numbers of workers during the recession, have been particularly slow to resume hiring.
While Mr. Krueger’s remarks at the hearing were not widely reported, their implications were clear: raising taxes can support both deficit reduction and job growth. He testified that the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 “did not result in better performance in the labor market than was achieved in the 1990s, a period when government revenue increased, and the deficit was reduced and eventually eliminated.”
Whether that perspective will shape the policy debate will become clear in the coming months. In the meantime, some experts say that job creation and deficit reduction are not mutually exclusive.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
SUPREME COURT GUN RULING
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS!
The Supreme Court decision on gun bans is a sign that anarchy exists in many urban centers. The police depts. can not control violence and crime. Every morning when I read the Chicago Tribune there are articles about people shot and killed and dead bodies found. Where a citizen has to carry a gun to protect himself civilization has broken down. Yet this is the situation that exists in many urban centers in the US.
Having each citizen carry a gun is not the solution. It is an invitation to more shooting and killings often over what seems like trivial matters.
Many believe that the Police should do more. Maybe these people are “looking thru the wrong end of the telescope”. The real challenge is to improve the BROKEN HOMES, BROKEN SCHOOLS and ECONOMIC DESPAIR that exists in high crime neighborhoods.
When we do that then this source of the demand for guns will gradually disappear.
The Supreme Court decision on gun bans is a sign that anarchy exists in many urban centers. The police depts. can not control violence and crime. Every morning when I read the Chicago Tribune there are articles about people shot and killed and dead bodies found. Where a citizen has to carry a gun to protect himself civilization has broken down. Yet this is the situation that exists in many urban centers in the US.
Having each citizen carry a gun is not the solution. It is an invitation to more shooting and killings often over what seems like trivial matters.
Many believe that the Police should do more. Maybe these people are “looking thru the wrong end of the telescope”. The real challenge is to improve the BROKEN HOMES, BROKEN SCHOOLS and ECONOMIC DESPAIR that exists in high crime neighborhoods.
When we do that then this source of the demand for guns will gradually disappear.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
RESTRUCTURE-REGULATION IS NOT ENOUGH
REGULATION IS NOT ENOUGH—RESTRUCTURE! The facts behind the news.
In regard to the Financial Reform bill “REGULATION IS NOT ENOUGH” for several reasons. I) It depends on who is doing the regulating.
During the Bush years all the regulatory agencies were underfunded and staffed with people who did not believe in regulation. We are now experiencing the results, whether it’s the SEC and financial regulation, Nancy Nord and Consumer Products such as baby cribs ,or Mining and Mineral Dept.—oil spill, or mine safety-29 coal miners killed, Dept. of the Interior, or lax aircraft maintenance inspection by the FAA and so it goes all across the Govt regulatory organizations.
2)It is also important, to not only focus on mechanical ways to make THE PUBLIC SAFER, but also more broadly on helping people deal with potentially catastrophic complexity. There must be ways to improve the choice architecture — to help people guard against risk creep, false security, groupthink, the good-news bias and all the rest. Ideas from David Brooks NY Times editorial.
This is why it is essential to restructure and put into law policies to protect the public in any of these areas so as to do everything possible to maintain a high level of oversight. The Obrama administration may faithfully follow guidelines but what about future administrations?
1)In regard to Financial Reform this why Derivatives should have no place in commercial banking. They are too risky and were one of the major causes of the recent financial meltdown. Commercial banking should stick to commercial banking or similar low risk activities.
Derivatives and other risky financial arrangements should be handled by specialty firms that offer speculators, wealthy individuals, large corporations the opportunity for large gains and the risk of large losses, and for hedging purposes.
2)Such an arrangement would make commercial banking a more low key risk adverse business. It would tend to keep commercial banks a slower growth business. This is the way commercial banks should be. The Commercial banks should service the savings, checking, mortgages and trust business of the general public They should stay out of risky business that can hurt the general public when things go wrong. See recent meltdown.
The Volcker plan is good but it does not go far enough. It is better to get the “gogo” boys out of the commercial banking business. “Gogo” boys should not be in commercial banking. They should be in other areas of business .
In regard to the Financial Reform bill “REGULATION IS NOT ENOUGH” for several reasons. I) It depends on who is doing the regulating.
During the Bush years all the regulatory agencies were underfunded and staffed with people who did not believe in regulation. We are now experiencing the results, whether it’s the SEC and financial regulation, Nancy Nord and Consumer Products such as baby cribs ,or Mining and Mineral Dept.—oil spill, or mine safety-29 coal miners killed, Dept. of the Interior, or lax aircraft maintenance inspection by the FAA and so it goes all across the Govt regulatory organizations.
2)It is also important, to not only focus on mechanical ways to make THE PUBLIC SAFER, but also more broadly on helping people deal with potentially catastrophic complexity. There must be ways to improve the choice architecture — to help people guard against risk creep, false security, groupthink, the good-news bias and all the rest. Ideas from David Brooks NY Times editorial.
This is why it is essential to restructure and put into law policies to protect the public in any of these areas so as to do everything possible to maintain a high level of oversight. The Obrama administration may faithfully follow guidelines but what about future administrations?
1)In regard to Financial Reform this why Derivatives should have no place in commercial banking. They are too risky and were one of the major causes of the recent financial meltdown. Commercial banking should stick to commercial banking or similar low risk activities.
Derivatives and other risky financial arrangements should be handled by specialty firms that offer speculators, wealthy individuals, large corporations the opportunity for large gains and the risk of large losses, and for hedging purposes.
2)Such an arrangement would make commercial banking a more low key risk adverse business. It would tend to keep commercial banks a slower growth business. This is the way commercial banks should be. The Commercial banks should service the savings, checking, mortgages and trust business of the general public They should stay out of risky business that can hurt the general public when things go wrong. See recent meltdown.
The Volcker plan is good but it does not go far enough. It is better to get the “gogo” boys out of the commercial banking business. “Gogo” boys should not be in commercial banking. They should be in other areas of business .
Monday, June 7, 2010
WHY AUTO DEALERS NEED OVERSIGHT
WHY AUTO DEALERS—
NEED OVERSIIGHT BY THE CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY!
A review of the facts should convince anyone that auto dealers should not be exempt from oversight by the new Consumer Protection Agency to be part of the Federal Reserve.
1) Many people with diverse backgrounds buy new and used autos. Most of the buyers and lookers do not have enough technical background to make an informed decision about the autos they see. The potential customers rely on the salesperson they speak to and ads they see on TV. The purchase of an auto is usually a large purchase from several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars.
2 Right there you have a possibility and an incentive for potential customers to be taken advantage of. The salesperson, usually an expert on autos, is advising an untrained buyer on what to purchase. For the unscrupulous salesperson this is an open invitation to take advantage of the perspective buyer.
3) While not all salespeople would take advantage, enough of the auto salespeople do so that that auto dealers have a reputation for sharp practice and people not to be trusted.
4) This tends to be true of not only autos but also computers, insurance, mortgages etc. This is the reason for having a Consumer Protection Agency. Purchasing today is more complicated usually with all kinds of paperwork that most people do not understand and realize the legal implications of.
5) Wherever the buyer has to rely on the seller for the knowledge to choose a purchase you have the potential for purchases that are not in the best interest of the buyer.
6) Auto dealers are the last place in our economy that does not need oversight by a Consumer Protection Agency.
7) As our representative in government we rely on you to protect the interests of the people. In this case you can accomplish this by making sure the Consumer Protection Agency has oversight of the auto dealers.
NEED OVERSIIGHT BY THE CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY!
A review of the facts should convince anyone that auto dealers should not be exempt from oversight by the new Consumer Protection Agency to be part of the Federal Reserve.
1) Many people with diverse backgrounds buy new and used autos. Most of the buyers and lookers do not have enough technical background to make an informed decision about the autos they see. The potential customers rely on the salesperson they speak to and ads they see on TV. The purchase of an auto is usually a large purchase from several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars.
2 Right there you have a possibility and an incentive for potential customers to be taken advantage of. The salesperson, usually an expert on autos, is advising an untrained buyer on what to purchase. For the unscrupulous salesperson this is an open invitation to take advantage of the perspective buyer.
3) While not all salespeople would take advantage, enough of the auto salespeople do so that that auto dealers have a reputation for sharp practice and people not to be trusted.
4) This tends to be true of not only autos but also computers, insurance, mortgages etc. This is the reason for having a Consumer Protection Agency. Purchasing today is more complicated usually with all kinds of paperwork that most people do not understand and realize the legal implications of.
5) Wherever the buyer has to rely on the seller for the knowledge to choose a purchase you have the potential for purchases that are not in the best interest of the buyer.
6) Auto dealers are the last place in our economy that does not need oversight by a Consumer Protection Agency.
7) As our representative in government we rely on you to protect the interests of the people. In this case you can accomplish this by making sure the Consumer Protection Agency has oversight of the auto dealers.
Monday, December 14, 2009
NO! To Shameful HEALTHCARE INSURANCE CAPS!
THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
The CNN Ticker said that Sen Max Baucus, his aide Erin Shields and Sen Harry Reid and one of his aides were planning caps on health insurance under the Reform Healthcare Bill.
This appears to be an outright SCAM FOR THE INSURANCE BUYERS. That this scam is being proposed by two members of the US Senate is astounding. Most of the buyers of insurance under the reform bill are not experienced insurance people. When they purchase health insurance I am sure they are expecting full coverage for their medical problems. To try and substitute what amounts to “limited liability” in stead of full coverage is a scam. Is this the private insurance co’s way of replacing “recessions”?
Most of the buyers, certainly those being subsidized, will not have the knowledge or money to buy an additional insurance policy to cover the possible medical costs not covered by the cap policies. To say that the cap policies will cost less is misrepresentation and misleading. Of course they will cost less because they do not pay for the expensive care some will need.
Cap policies will do very little to reduce the 50 to 60 of total bankruptcies due to the inability to pay large medical bills. Of the medical bankruptcies about 2/3 have some medial insurance but not enough.
If this is the thinking of the private insurance co’s and their representatives in Congress I believe the US gov’t should step in with a single payer system and furnish the Reform Bill Healthcare policies.
The CNN Ticker said that Sen Max Baucus, his aide Erin Shields and Sen Harry Reid and one of his aides were planning caps on health insurance under the Reform Healthcare Bill.
This appears to be an outright SCAM FOR THE INSURANCE BUYERS. That this scam is being proposed by two members of the US Senate is astounding. Most of the buyers of insurance under the reform bill are not experienced insurance people. When they purchase health insurance I am sure they are expecting full coverage for their medical problems. To try and substitute what amounts to “limited liability” in stead of full coverage is a scam. Is this the private insurance co’s way of replacing “recessions”?
Most of the buyers, certainly those being subsidized, will not have the knowledge or money to buy an additional insurance policy to cover the possible medical costs not covered by the cap policies. To say that the cap policies will cost less is misrepresentation and misleading. Of course they will cost less because they do not pay for the expensive care some will need.
Cap policies will do very little to reduce the 50 to 60 of total bankruptcies due to the inability to pay large medical bills. Of the medical bankruptcies about 2/3 have some medial insurance but not enough.
If this is the thinking of the private insurance co’s and their representatives in Congress I believe the US gov’t should step in with a single payer system and furnish the Reform Bill Healthcare policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)