Originally posted by: RKDaley
Did you just contradict yourself?
It would appear so. I should have known better than to use an absolute. Although the number of latepayments (2) out of all the bills we get still amounts to a very miniscule percentage
Ignoring potienial consequences - hypothetical situations as it were - would be a serious mistake in passing legislation (or any planning for that matter)
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
the question is if people carrying a balance but paying what is due or more than what is due on time at low interest rates will see their rates increased prior to the law going into effect, or an annual fee (which they can't avoid just by cutting up the card without getting some other credit line/loan), etc.?
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
What you're talking about amounts to letting the credit card companies hold you hostage to stave off any regulation/reform.
You can't name a single provision within the bill you disagree with, but you're letting their threats of increased fees and reduced perks buy your vote. I'm amazed people are readily admitting how easily (and cheaply) they can be bought by their credit card companies.
You already said you threatened to leave your credit card company once before when they were going to change their contract terms. Why can't you do it again? If you're in bed with snakes, did you ever think you were better off knowing about it?
I agree completely with this bill, but will be sad if they reduce my benefits, as I am one of those industry deadbeats that uses my card for everything and pays it off every month, and enjoys a $500-600 check every year. AMEX is making a killing from me through merchant fees. If they try to take it away, I'll move to another card or cash if I have to. I'm really doubting that card companies are going to reducing benefits that much as many media outlets are now reporting. The days of extreme profits in the CC industry are now gone, and any attempts to hold on to them is just going to backfire and drive away business.
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
Yes usery was not allowed for some time. Because of the church . But even tho usery is wrong. The Church used its authority to keep more many in its clients pockets for offerrings .
You would have a hard time understanding a true cgristian living in todays world. The ones living outside the world easy to spot . The ones living inside are not. Seek them.
Thump553
Lifer
- Jun 2, 2000
- 12,839
- 2,625
- 136
Most states still have usury laws. The credit card companies are exempted, usually because they are licensed lenders.
Odds are it would be illegal for you to make a loan to your brother at the same rate Citibank is charging him on his credit card. Makes it a bit of a problem to legally set up payback loan sometimes when one family member bails out another by cosigning on a loan.
Odds are it would be illegal for you to make a loan to your brother at the same rate Citibank is charging him on his credit card. Makes it a bit of a problem to legally set up payback loan sometimes when one family member bails out another by cosigning on a loan.
I don't understand the logic of this threads argument.
This is the argument i think you are making.
"Tim was robbing Paul for money."
"The police stopped Tim from robbing Paul."
"Tim needs a new way to rob Paul."
----------------------------------------
This is the way it is.
"Tim was robbing Paul for money."
"The police stopped Tim from robbing Paul."
"Tim is no longer getting robbed. Paul is no longer doing unethical things."
This is the argument i think you are making.
"Tim was robbing Paul for money."
"The police stopped Tim from robbing Paul."
"Tim needs a new way to rob Paul."
----------------------------------------
This is the way it is.
"Tim was robbing Paul for money."
"The police stopped Tim from robbing Paul."
"Tim is no longer getting robbed. Paul is no longer doing unethical things."
If you pay your CC bills on time, might as well go with a charge card like Amex Gold although I'm not sure if they report to credit b's...
LTC8K6
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2004
- 28,520
- 1,576
- 126
I think the people who got shafted in favor of the UAW probably care...
http://www.wibc.com/news/Story.aspx?ID=1094872
Indiana will no longer invest in bonds issued by banks and automakers who receive federal bailout money.
Bondholders are supposed to be at the head of the line for repayment if a company goes bankrupt. But State Treasurer Richard Mourdock says the government rewrote the rulebook for the Chrysler bankruptcy, leaving investors with 29 cents on the dollar. Mourdock says that cost state investment funds $5.6 million.
Mourdock has lodged an objection to Chrysler's restructuring with the bankruptcy judge hearing the case, making Indiana the only one of the automaker's creditors to do so.
Mourdock says the state won't sell bonds it already holds -- he says that would lock in losses. But he's ordering fund managers not to buy any more bonds from Chrysler, GM, or banks covered by the bailout.
Mourdock says the Obama Administration's handling of Chrysler's debt wiped out $896,000 in value from the state's investment of the proceeds from the 2006 lease of the Indiana Toll Road, and $147,400 from the Indiana State Police Pension Fund. Mourdock oversees both portfolios.
Mourdock says the Teachers Retirement Fund, which is administered separately, lost $4.6 million.
The good: Less dumb Americans going into credit debt (well maybe)
The bad: Less arbitrage and reward opportunities for financially responsible people like me
The bad: Less arbitrage and reward opportunities for financially responsible people like me
Are you kidding me? Having worked for two different major lenders with portfolios greater than 3bn and 80bn, I can say that just like insurance and any form of taxes, on a portfolio basis, it is always "subsidization". Some people make no claims for insurance, some unfortunately make many, the pain is shared by all. Big fucking deal.
These fuckwads got their way in 2005 with the "bankruptcy reform act" that was supposed to lower "debt costs" and "improve capital markets". Instead, they gang-banged the country and fucked us all with uber-fees, shackeling people down. Sure, people signed on the dotted line, but the equation that is supposed to be fair and balanced became corrupt. Then they kept changing the rules, essentially creating open-ended contracts on their side but demanding utter adherence to them on their side (which was "reform", as in "I'm going to reform you, boy, after I go medieval on your ass").
It's about damn time they slapped these idiots down.
Are you telling us that you don't plan for the future at all? That you have never asked yourself the question, "if I do this, what would be the consequences?" Have you not seen many laws and regulations with good intentions that have led to nightmarish results?
Please stop trolling.
Edit: for the record, I do like the bill (in fact, I think it doesn't go far enough), and I don't think that the CC companies will be stupid enough to penalize their good customers and be left with people who can't manage their debt. However, you berate posters who advance perfectly valid (even if unlikely) concerns, and look like an idiot in the process.
I hope this bill will help, at least a little. Personally, I recently got hammered by Chase with a huge rate increase because of a late payment. What happened was my due date the month before (on a WAMU statement) was the 16th, so the following month I logged into the new Chase site on the 12th to schedule my payment only to find out my payment was due on the 9th. As a result, they jacked my APR to 29.99%.
I admit it was my fault for not logging in earlier and checking my electronic statement, and I shouldn't have assumed the due date would be the 16th after it transferred from WAMU to Chase. I called and explained to them what had happened and, despite the fact I have never been late in the past, always paid more than my min due, and have never gone over my credit limit or even been close to it, they basically said "screw you!". I was told it will stay 29.99%, and my min payment will now be 5% of the balance, until the balance is paid in full. Instead of dealing with that BS, I just got a loan from USAA and paid it off.
I admit it was my fault for not logging in earlier and checking my electronic statement, and I shouldn't have assumed the due date would be the 16th after it transferred from WAMU to Chase. I called and explained to them what had happened and, despite the fact I have never been late in the past, always paid more than my min due, and have never gone over my credit limit or even been close to it, they basically said "screw you!". I was told it will stay 29.99%, and my min payment will now be 5% of the balance, until the balance is paid in full. Instead of dealing with that BS, I just got a loan from USAA and paid it off.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
As I've mentioned before, even I as a libertarian I think the CC companies need to be smacked down hard. Contracts are at the very heart of the free market, and the ability for one party to change them at will without agreement by the other party is about as anti-free market as it gets.
If you guys hate credit cards and banks so much, may I recommend:
payday loan providers
The Rush Card (TM)
Read the article and weep about how The Man is keeping inner city poor from getting the supermarket bonus card.
payday loan providers
The Rush Card (TM)
Read the article and weep about how The Man is keeping inner city poor from getting the supermarket bonus card.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter