Level 5 DSR story

[mousecatcher]

I dont know Tucker personally, but have sure come to dislike the persona he's presented as in the media.
And hiding tax-free behind "native american" status, well thats a thread for another day.
HOWEVER, at the same time, Tucker isn't stupid by any means and I'd bet my house that there is every legal clause necessary, (in admittedly miniscule font) on the contracts these people signed that reveals all fees and rates.
I put equal blame on the people who got themselves into the need for these loans as I do on the leech that took advantage of them. This country needs to drop its "I'm entitled" attitude before it all goes down the drain.
YMMV

You are giving the man far too much benefit of the doubt. He's a scum, plain and simple.

1. The tribal agreement thing was not about taxes, it was about using tribal status to escape federal and state laws. It was illegal because the tribes were not actually participants in the business.

2. A federal judge decided otherwise, that fees were NOT disclosed. There are many "payday lenders" that are not pursued, because they follow the laws regarding fee disclosure, etc. Tucker's company was not one of them. His loans ended up costing much more than even the stated exploitative rates.

I come from poverty and have taken a payday loan in my time. And that was long ago, when things weren't as bad as they are today. The growth of the economy during that time, for the middle class not just the 1%, was pretty instrumental to my eventual success. Nowadays it is pretty damn rough. In my experience, there's very little "entitlement" attitude amongst the people that are in dire enough straits to take payday loans. There is generational poverty now in America and it's not just a problem of personal responsibility. You are born poor, you go to crappy schools, you have no family support, everyone around you is bringing you down, it's just crazy hard to climb out of that.

[David Locke]

You are giving the man far too much benefit of the doubt. He's a scum, plain and simple.

1. The tribal agreement thing was not about taxes, it was about using tribal status to escape federal and state laws. It was illegal because the tribes were not actually participants in the business.

2. A federal judge decided otherwise, that fees were NOT disclosed. There are many "payday lenders" that are not pursued, because they follow the laws regarding fee disclosure, etc. Tucker's company was not one of them. His loans ended up costing much more than even the stated exploitative rates.

When Tucker previously engaged in these kinds of deceptive practices with "payday" loans, he and his companies were subject to the enforcement of state laws by state attorneys general. His solution was to charter corporations under the laws of certain Indian tribes, which are considered "domestic dependent nations" under the Constitution, to avoid prosecution by the states in which he was doing business. But tribal sovereignty did not stop the Federal Trade Commission from going after him.

[SEComposites]

What's worrying is I doubt that he came up with this scheme on his own. His legal team are just as culpable as he is. Scum bags all around. There can't many other deplorable ways to earn money than preying on the vulnerable.

[RussMcB]

It is heartening to hear not everyone thinks people who want or need assistance (payday loans, welfare, subsidies) aren't all lazy and feel entitled. I think 99% of them would rather have a steady job with decent pay and enjoy the same benefits of other people lucky enough to not be born poor or with other circumstances beyond their control and hard to overcome.

[dsmithwc04]

It is heartening to hear not everyone thinks people who want or need assistance (payday loans, welfare, subsidies) aren't all lazy and feel entitled. I think 99% of them would rather have a steady job with decent pay and enjoy the same benefits of other people lucky enough to not be born poor or with other circumstances beyond their control and hard to overcome.

99% eh? You have a much nicer view of reality than I. Perhaps the people I've come across so far in my short life are not an accurate representation of the overall population...

[SEComposites]

The lazy and 'entitled' minority are still not fair game for such nefarious individuals to take advantage off, whether a crime has been committed or not.

[dsmithwc04]

The lazy and 'entitled' minority are still not fair game for such nefarious individuals to take advantage off, whether a crime has been committed or not.

Agreed

[Daryl DeArman]

The lazy and 'entitled' minority are still not fair game for such nefarious individuals to take advantage off, whether a crime has been committed or not.

I disagree. If they are lazy and "entitled" and no crime is being committed, who is to say they are being taken advantage of? How about some personal responsibility?

[SEComposites]

I guess that depends on where ones moral compass is set.

[Daryl DeArman]

I guess that depends on where ones moral compass is set.

Agreed.

There are plenty of things I wouldn't do if they were legal tomorrow.

I also see a large difference between those depending on a handout and those seeking a hand up and your scenario did state the "lazy and entitled"...I have no desire to enable them.

In my opinion we already have too much government meddling. I don't want the government telling me how much I can charge for my services, I don't know any other business owners that do. Let the market decide if I am charging too much.

[mousecatcher]

What's worrying is I doubt that he came up with this scheme on his own. His legal team are just as culpable as he is. Scum bags all around. There can't many other deplorable ways to earn money than preying on the vulnerable.

http://www.native-loans.com/native-a...-payday-loans/

The general scheme of using a front man to represent your business (on paper) is one of the oldest (and most transparent) tricks around. Given the large number of tribal lenders, it must have seemed an obvious and easy solution. He probably should have cut them in for 25% not 1%.

[Daryl DeArman]

They are unsecured loans to people with poor credit. Why shouldn't the interest rates be higher than a pawn shop?

Don't borrow money from them if you don't want to pay such rates. Pretty simple really.

[John Nesbitt]

They are unsecured loans to people with poor credit. Why shouldn't the interest rates be higher than a pawn shop?

Don't borrow money from them if you don't want to pay such rates. Pretty simple really.

Easy to say from a comfortable vantage point.

Not so easy for folks scratching out a living by cobbling part time, low wage jobs together.

Something like 60% of American households do not have financial reserves to cover a $500 car repair. Without a car, you cannot get to that minimum wage job. What do you do? What do you skip - Food? Heat?


Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? - Ebenezer Scrooge

[dsmithwc04]

Easy to say from a comfortable vantage point.

Not so easy for folks scratching out a living by cobbling part time, low wage jobs together.

Something like 60% of American households do not have financial reserves to cover a $500 car repair. Without a car, you cannot get to that minimum wage job. What do you do? What do you skip - Food? Heat?


Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? - Ebenezer Scrooge

But if your not getting by on your wage then how is a loan ever going to help? There are so many programs made available to the destitute, poor and even the lazy from the Federal Govmt. Some of the programs are good, a lot are misguided at best... Hell, even some government jobs are a form of welfare. A good friend of mine has a girlfriend who works for the state government. She can come and go as she pleases as long as she puts in 35 hours a week. She doesn't even have to call in on days she doesn't want to go in. She sits at a computer desk and watches youtube and reads her personal internet forums all day. This is from her own mouth.

[Daryl DeArman]

Something like 60% of American households do not have financial reserves to cover a $500 car repair. Without a car, you cannot get to that minimum wage job. What do you do? What do you skip - Food? Heat?

Bus, bicycle, feet. Three viable options for the motivated. Sixty percent of American households not having $500 in the bank is not an income problem, it's a behavior problem. Ninety+ percent of those folks just need to change their priorities.

[Dennis McCarthy]

I think this thread has about run it's course...

[John Nesbitt]

Bus, bicycle, feet. Three viable options for the motivated. Sixty percent of American households not having $500 in the bank is not an income problem, it's a behavior problem. Ninety+ percent of those folks just need to change their priorities.

You are absolutely right.

These people should "decide" not to be born into poverty. They should "decide" not to grow up with bad schools, crime, bad examples, and general social degradation. They should "decide" not to have a parent who loses their job overseas, and with it their house. They should "decide" to drive a car that never breaks down or to live in affordable housing within walking distance of their 7-11 job (and their second and third jobs). They should "decide" to have ample savings and good credit. They should "decide" never to have their stove or furnace break and certainly never to have a sick child requiring care or medicine. There, that was easy.

Tucker and his ilk are not, after all, bottom-feeders sucking the lifeblood out of vulnerable people. They are social benefactors exposing the moral failings of these losers.

[Daryl DeArman]

These people should "decide" not to be born into poverty. They should "decide" not to grow up with bad schools, crime, bad examples, and general social degradation. They should "decide" not to have a parent who loses their job overseas, and with it their house. They should "decide" to drive a car that never breaks down or to live in affordable housing within walking distance of their 7-11 job (and their second and third jobs). They should "decide" to have ample savings and good credit. They should "decide" never to have their stove or furnace break and certainly never to have a sick child requiring care or medicine. There, that was easy.

I don't know anybody who got to choose their parents or their parents' jobs. What I do know is that we ALL had choices as to how to play the hand we were dealt.

Having ample savings and good credit ABSOLUTELY is a choice. If I had a child or other loved one that required expensive care, have no doubt that my CHOICE would be to care for them no matter the cost. Everything else is just stuff. I am not going to blame anybody else for the decisions I make.

Tucker and his ilk are not, after all, bottom-feeders sucking the lifeblood out of vulnerable people. They are social benefactors exposing the moral failings of these losers.

We disagree again They certainly are bottom-feeders sucking the lifeblood out of vulnerable people. I am not defending him or his ilk. I am saying that his "victims" have some culpability.

[RussMcB]

I'm expecting to have Doug wag his finger at me for posting this. :-)

[John Nesbitt]

I agree with an earlier poster that the thread has kind of wandered off. I acknowledge my share of that. I shall sign off with this.

The podcast was extremely entertaining. The Level 5 effort at the Runoffs was a sight to behold, and I was there to behold it. Mr. Braun lived a dream that many on this board share - an unlimited budget, and he has the result demanded.

However, that result was funded with dirty money.

[cory mcleod]

Ok, so I've learned that it is immoral to expect people to take personal responsibility for the results of their behavior and a people can't be expected to support themselves if they don't have a car.

Now back to something racing related - Tucker's quest to build the ultimate DSR and win the Runoffs was successful, so were any new rules passed after the 2012 Runoffs for DSR/P2 to keep that from happening again? Is that when the rules were changed to dial back some of the DSR/P2 performance?

Cory

[Daryl DeArman]

Clearly the old white dude is going to lose. He's in a suit with penny loafers. He's also less motivated to get through that course quickly.

[David Locke]

Now back to something racing related - Tucker's quest to build the ultimate DSR and win the Runoffs was successful, so were any new rules passed after the 2012 Runoffs for DSR/P2 to keep that from happening again? Is that when the rules were changed to dial back some of the DSR/P2 performance?

Cory

The CRB imposed an inlet restrictor (32mm) on 670cc turbocharged and supercharged engines in DSR effective 2/1/13. This was 11 months before consolidation of the sports racing classes into P1 and P2 occurred.

[Bill Bonow]

The podcast was extremely entertaining. The Level 5 effort at the Runoffs was a sight to behold. Mr. Braun lived a dream that many on this board share - an unlimited budget, and he has the result demanded.

A great statement to end this thread on.
Thanks for posting the link to the Jeff Braun interview.
Yes, extremely entertaining and I've forwarded it to many to enjoy as well.
That was the topic of this thread and it certainly looks like the conversation about Jeff and his involvement with the Level 5 DSR program in 2012 has concluded.