Bryant - Wrong, Redux

you know his supporters are far more outraged that Ron Wilson choses to give his own money to candidates that they dont support...than the fact that bryant or cindi or anyone they do support might be walking a fine ethical line,,

after all..to them..ethics only applies to their opponents

. . . bump . . .

To give the Senator an opportunity to reply.


- SSHM

(Edit: You need to hum the theme song to the TV show Dragnet while reading this, folks.)

Today's political lesson is brought to you by the fine folks at FITSNews. These folks seem to scoop just about everyone on anything political happening in SC.

It's been some time since we have looked into Sen. Kevin Bryant and what he does wrong, both for Senate District 3 and for his time in Columbia.

It's time to look at where the Senator gets his campaign money from. Keep in mind, what you are reading is verifiable both via FITSNews and also the SC State Ethics Commission. Oh, and the local AIM helped maybe a little . . .

Disclaimer: No FOIAs were filed, harmed, or required to obtain this information. Everything was available and readily accessible.

On with the news!

Let's look at payday lenders. To date, Sen. Bryant has taken a "hands-off approach" to this hot issue. Specifically, in a February 17th Anderson Independent-Mail news article, Sen. Bryant is quoted as saying:

“It’s not something I would use personally, but I do know there are people for whatever reason have a more difficult financial situation sometimes can’t avail themselves of help anywhere else,”

Apparently, the payday lenders would like to avail you some money to help re-elect you, sir:

TitleMax - 02/02/2008 - $500.00

Check Into Cash - 01/16/2008 - $1,000.00

Nice to know neutrality buys you $1500 in campaign contributions.

Moving right along . . .

It's time to get familiar with The South Carolina Senate Republican Caucus

Nicely designed website. Well, this group donated to Senator Bryant's re-election campaign. Specifically:

SC Senate Republican Caucus - 03/26/2008 - $2,025.00

Ok, so you are saying, what is the big deal, right? It's a group of Repulican Lawmakers, that all work for the Senate donating money to each other. Still, what is the big deal, right?

I got your big deal, right here.

So, is it wise, in a political season where so much revolves around "transparent and open government," that someone, who has made it his flagship issue, take money from what is shaping up to be a shady group?

I'll let you decide at the polls . . .


- SSHM

- SSHM

I don't think the Senator is "bought" by the payday lenders. His hands off approach fits his political philosophy of letting the marketplace decide such things.

Now, if you disagree with that approach, fine. But I think it is sort of a cheap shot to say the senator is their pocket.

But isnt that what the right wing radcals say about money given to their opponents..

yes it is...so it must be true about them as well...

ask Rod Shealy..he will tell you its so

I had to quote myself, as I spotted something after the fact . . .

Let's look at payday lenders. To date, Sen. Bryant has taken a "hands-off approach" to this hot issue. Specifically, in a February 17th Anderson Independent-Mail news article, Sen. Bryant is quoted as saying:

“It’s not something I would use personally, but I do know there are people for whatever reason have a more difficult financial situation sometimes can’t avail themselves of help anywhere else,”

- SSHM

Now I quoted myself to point out something. If you look at Sen. Bryant's quote, he is advocating a "umm-err-gee-wiz" approach to payday lending. In short, leaving accountability, personal accountability, to the individual.

Then there is the Kevin Bryant that supports transparent and open government (e.g. FULL ACCOUNTABILITY) and his bill, no strike that, rider that addresses FULL ACCOUNTABILITY.

Sir, if you are demanding FULL ACCOUNTABILITY to government, but simply shrugging your shoulders at PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY, what kind of message are you sending? Isn't that a bit like talking out of both sides of your mouth?

Oh well . . . keep taking those checks! Nice to know you can cash in on a lack of PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY.

STUPID SHOULD HURT MORE!

- SSHM

In short, leaving accountability, personal accountability, to the individual.

Then there is the Kevin Bryant that supports transparent and open government (e.g. FULL ACCOUNTABILITY) and his bill, no strike that, rider that addresses FULL ACCOUNTABILITY.

- SSHM

- SSHM

So what is wrong with leaving personal accountability to the individual, while requiring the Gubmint to be open and fully accountable to the governed?

What have I missed?

I don't see the contradiction either, Billyboy. Sounds like Bryant favors accountability at every level.

So what is wrong with leaving personal accountability to the individual, while requiring the Gubmint to be open and fully accountable to the governed?

What have I missed?

- BillyBoy

Accountability is like a light switch: It's either on or off.

What you have missed is where the rest of us that ARE personally responsible individuals end up filling in the gaps for those that are not.

Learn about payday lending here.

Understand what a blight this is. Understand what people are having to endure. Then ask yourself why would ANYONE take money from these individuals.

- SSHM

CAVE folks, here's another opportunity for you to do some GOOD for the taxpayers of Anderson County !

Payday lenders, title loans, land-home packages, lease to own, and no-credit-okay. What do they all have in common ? They are all preditory lenders !

These sleazy folks extract many times more money in interest from the poor and unsuspecting than do our taxes.

So, if you are really trying to help the citizens of the county, work to get these parasites shut down. How ?

Write to your representatives in Columbia, especially sleazy Briant. Work to educate the young disadvantaged through the schools, churches, and youth groups. Circulate posters near the dozens of sleazy companies that prey on the citizens of Anderson County.

Even Driver could help you in this by having a daily anti-rip-off piece on his show.

Once again, CAVE, here is a way you could have a positive effect. It is clear you are not getting anywhere with your present witch hunts. Why ? Because there is NO WRONG DOING !

But there IS PREDITORY LENDING and you can do something about it, if you want to.

Will the real slim shady please stand up?

I've stated my opposition to payday lenders in the past - last year when Leisure Suit Larry showed up to defend them - and I'm disappointed that Kevin Bryant is apparently AWOL on the issue. (I've talked to my own Senator, Larry Martin, about predatory lenders, too. He's still "studying" the issue.")

The sooner we can rid the landscape of the blight that is payday lending (along with hidden and outrageous charges by even our "respectable" banks in the community), the better off we'll all be - and I say that as a Republican who thinks the free market system should be allowed to work. Payday lending is not a "free market." It's a license to steal.

SSHM, can you explain, how this is not a personal responsibility issue? I read your post and if the borrower has 31 days to pay back the lender and the lender already has the borrowers check how does the yearly rate apply to anything? I mean if I borrow $20 off of yu and you told me I had 31 days to pay it back and it was gonna cost me $5, Isn't it up to me whether I want to borrow it at that rate or just do without whtever I was borrowing the $20 for in the first place. I am being serious by the way, I am definitly missing something here if you, JD, and George are against it. So please SPLAIN IT

Reality check here.

Most people who go to payday lenders (in my estimation, it is ALL who go there) are unable to get loans elsewhere due to poor credit.

Why? Because they have bounced checks, defaulted on loans, been late on payments, or something that makes them credit risks.

The reality is that anyone who loans such a person $$ may risk not getting it back.

Therefore, their risk being higher, it costs more to obtain a loan from such companies when in all reality no one else will make the loan.

Some folks have hit a stretch of real bad luck, and need a loan and pay it back. Not a huge hit financially if they make the payment in a timely fashion. But if they are late it costs more.

I am not being heartless, just realistic. I would not want to loan my own money to someone who is unlikely to pay it back on time without some way to protect myself. Why should not the company?

and the fact is that this is often the ONLY way for such folks to get a loan.

Interesting that you should bring up the pay-day legislation. Thursday in the Senate, there were attempts to amend a House bill to re-address the issue. So far, the amendments have been ruled “non-germane”, but a new ruling is pending for Tuesday.

SSHM, you are saying government should oversee the personal transactions of taxpayers, but taxpayers should have no oversight of the transactions of their government.

This is backwards. The taxpayer should not have to answer to the government while spending the taxpayers’ money.
The government should have to answer to the taxpayer while spending the taxpayers’ money.

You can find my reasons for voting against the pay day lending regulations on my site. here. My vote was actually against the industry’s wishes. They asked for an “aye” in the final Senate bill.

Whether you agree with my record, it is an open book, more so than any other elected official in South Carolina. Thank you for your interest.

Senator, what kind of twisted thinking is that?

Most of us Republicans actually do believe the government should step aside and let the free market work. If you are truly a conservative, you believe that too. Don't you? I mean, it's partly what makes us Repubicans and not Democrats, who believe more government is the solution to almost every problem we face.

But - like most of my REPUBLICAN pals - you want the government to interfere with the free market only when it suits your purposes and your agenda.

It's like those abortion issues we on the right constantly fight with those on the left over. Some among us on the right DECRY Roe v. Wade, which was a court mandate legalizing abortion, as an overstepping of the FEDERAL government into the domain of STATES RIGHTS. Yet, some of the same ones among those of us on the right call for a FEDERAL BAN ON ABORTION.

Here's a quick question for you, Kevin: Is abortion a FEDERAL issue or a STATE issue? And if you think it's a STATE issue, as I do, would you support a FEDERAL ban on abortion. I'm consistent here, Senator. Are you?

Anyway, back to payday lenders. The GOVERNMENT has chosen to regulate financial institutions such as banks and, yes, payday lenders.

Now, Senator, how can you justify defending the state having regulatory authority over such institutions, then squawk about how some of want the GOVERNMENT which OVERSEES THOSE BUSINESSES and has taken it upon itself to REGULATE them to do something about it when their practices become PREDATORY?

The choice between the conservative and the liberal philosophy, Senator, is whether the government chooses to allow the free market to work or to intervene with government controls on that free market. You and your colleagues have already made that choice. The degree to which you regulate them has nothing to do with the underlying principle involved.

So, yes, to the extent that the taxpayers expect the government they elected to respond to their problems, and since that government we elected has chosen to regulate this particular industry, we do, indeed, expect you to protect us from those sharks.

For cryin' out loud, individuals have been charged and convicted in this state for charging lower interest rates than those scumbags in the payday lending industry charge. Y'all have chosen to take it upon yourselves to regulate lenders in this state. Either regulate them, or leave them alone.

The state's role is simple: 1. Don't regulate them at all, or, 2. Regulate them in a manner that protects the people of the State of South Carolina, not in a way that protects the cash cows of South Carolina's elected officials.

I don't think those paltry campaign contributions you got from the industry have clouded your judgment, Senator. I think your philosophy is already kind of cloudy in some areas.

You are trying to have it both ways, Senator. Can't do that, Bubba.

We had a wonderful time discussing payday lending in this thread last year: Payday lending: A search for solutions

It was probably the only time in Cocklebur hiistory that all the regulars agreed on something. Buster and Senator Bryant, you should read it. It might be our best...thread...ever!

Thank you JD for spelling out the issue like you did..

I fully agree.. for me, the normal issue has nothing to do with whether or not I spport a politicians beliefs..but rather when you cant tell if they even have any..

true belief results in a consistent position...

(Edit: You need to hum the theme song to the TV show Dragnet while reading this, folks.)

Today's political lesson is brought to you by the fine folks at FITSNews. These folks seem to scoop just about everyone on anything political happening in SC.

It's been some time since we have looked into Sen. Kevin Bryant and what he does wrong, both for Senate District 3 and for his time in Columbia.

It's time to look at where the Senator gets his campaign money from. Keep in mind, what you are reading is verifiable both via FITSNews and also the SC State Ethics Commission. Oh, and the local AIM helped maybe a little . . .

Disclaimer: No FOIAs were filed, harmed, or required to obtain this information. Everything was available and readily accessible.

On with the news!

Let's look at payday lenders. To date, Sen. Bryant has taken a "hands-off approach" to this hot issue. Specifically, in a February 17th Anderson Independent-Mail news article, Sen. Bryant is quoted as saying:

“It’s not something I would use personally, but I do know there are people for whatever reason have a more difficult financial situation sometimes can’t avail themselves of help anywhere else,”

Apparently, the payday lenders would like to avail you some money to help re-elect you, sir:

TitleMax - 02/02/2008 - $500.00

Check Into Cash - 01/16/2008 - $1,000.00

Nice to know neutrality buys you $1500 in campaign contributions.

Moving right along . . .

It's time to get familiar with The South Carolina Senate Republican Caucus

Nicely designed website. Well, this group donated to Senator Bryant's re-election campaign. Specifically:

SC Senate Republican Caucus - 03/26/2008 - $2,025.00

Ok, so you are saying, what is the big deal, right? It's a group of Repulican Lawmakers, that all work for the Senate donating money to each other. Still, what is the big deal, right?

I got your big deal, right here.

So, is it wise, in a political season where so much revolves around "transparent and open government," that someone, who has made it his flagship issue, take money from what is shaping up to be a shady group?

I'll let you decide at the polls . . .


- SSHM

- SSHM

Blah blah blah...

SSHM, once again, nobody cares about minutia like this.

I just had to lecture coke_stevenson on this. He tried to attack Sarah Drawdy with an obscure (to Anderson) state senator.

Now, you're trying to attack Sen. Bryant with minutia. Voters can't understand any of this garbage. This is political insider stuff. Normal people don't understand any of this.

Will Folks isn't even trustworthy enough to warrant linking to his blog about anything.

Now, you're trying to attack Sen. Bryant with minutia. Voters can't understand any of this garbage. This is political insider stuff. Normal people don't understand any of this.

- ahammett

WHAT?!?! So intelligent, fact driven discussion isn't what happens here? If it can't be distilled down to sometime cleaver enough to write it on a poster, it's to "educated" for the readers? Sorry, but most important issues are complicated, rarely black and white, and never easily summarized.