Senate passes credit card overhaul bill

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Exterous
Personally I don't think its the governments job to protect non-mentally challenged people from themselves.

Unless you're against ALL types of government regulation of private industry, I could list off about a dozen examples of regulation (from foods and drugs to automobiles and children's toys) where you would agree with the government protecting "non-mentally challenged people" from "themselves".

Do you disagree in this instance because their regulation in this case doesn't personally benefit you? That's somewhat selfish, don't you think?

And can you cite a specific provision in this bill you disagree with?

When the government introduced safety and fuel economy standards for automobiles, were you complaining that the big bad automobile industry was going to charge their customers more for building more efficient engines, or adding seat-belts and airbags?

 

[Chunkee]

I just got a letter today from Capital One stating they are raising my rates to 17.9 percent. Guess what fuckos...just payed it off...not ever gonna use it again.

They, like insurance companies and utilities, its a win win situation.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Fern pwned techs as usual, no surprise there.

This law is a step in the right direction. The whole "one side can change the agreement on a whim and change it retro-actively" is BS. The CC brought this on themselves. Had they not gone over the top and abused the consumer in so many ways, there would be these kinds of new laws.

I've often wondered how these practices are justified. IMHO, they fly in the face of all other established contract law...

 

[Bateluer]

The Roman Catholic church used to have very strong laws against usury, about it being the mark of laziness and essentially being money earned while sleeping. Tainted money, so to speak. However, church officials looked the other way when they were sufficiently 'distracted' and the laws were eventually changed.

 

[Exterous]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Exterous
Personally I don't think its the governments job to protect non-mentally challenged people from themselves.

Unless you're against ALL types of government regulation of private industry, I could list off about a dozen examples of regulation (from foods and drugs to automobiles and children's toys) where you would agree with the government protecting "non-mentally challenged people" from "themselves".

Do you disagree in this instance because their regulation in this case doesn't personally benefit you? That's somewhat selfish, don't you think?

And can you cite a specific provision in this bill you disagree with?

When the government introduced safety and fuel economy standards for automobiles, were you complaining that the big bad automobile industry was going to charge their customers more for building more efficient engines, or adding seat-belts and airbags?

The difference is that CC companies come with disclosure agreements that cover what can and cannot happen. If a toy said it contained lead and a parent bought it and then complained that the toy had lead in it I would say its not the governments job to protect the parent and child. Although if you want I will modify my statement to say I don't think the government should protect non-mentally challenged people from themselves when they are given a form to read and then sign the form (and agreeing they read the form) and then complain about changing circumstances that the form stated could happen.

It would be selfish if thats why I disagreed with the law. I disagree with the law as it coddles people and lets them know that its ok to not have personal financial responsibility. There is also a very likely trend to punish the people who do take personal financial responsibility by removing perks that the financial responsibility gave them.

You don't need to be against a certain provision in a bill to be against it. You can be against it because of the potential ramifications of the bill.

As for the safety and fuel standards - I though we were talking about credit cards in this thread?

 

[StageLeft]

I like how cnn's stance on this was that it would hurt those with good credit. Really? I have almost completely stopped using my cards (online only instead of a few thousand/month in general expenses like I used to), so if they charge interest from day 1, fvck them.

I would love to see a continuation of the effort to make it legally easier for companies to charge cash vs credit prices. That combined with these new laws would help to sink credit cards back to their stone age.

Sure, some benefits such as airline miles/cashback will be scaled back. However, most would consider it a fair trade off in order to scale back the collective raping of well-meaning consumers of credit.

Those are all bulls ass droppings anyway. You get 1-2% and probably paid 2%+ more to the vendor anyway as they had to cover the costs with the credit card company. That's why some places do charge less for cash. If all did/could easily, I'd miss my silly airline crap rewards barely fit for the toilet anyway and make more than that in saved money.

BTW, some of the stuff these credit card companies do is clearly awful, like bringing somebody's balance below their current rate and triggering a late fee. You could say don't use the card, and you'd be right, but as this is a newer practice, those who are paying down (I guess some are...) will be nailed and it's nuts.

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: spacejamz
Heard about this on the drive into work this morning...The credit card companies are just gonna find different ways to make up any lost revenues...

Some possibities include:

charging annual fees again
reducing credit card benefits
charging interest immediately instead of offering a grace period

Guess we will wait and see what happens...

all it seems to amount to is people with good credit who pay their bills on time getting screwed to subsidize people with bad credit.

I thought that was already given that the only people who will get screwed with this new bill are those who have sterling credit card reports! I mean think about, how do you screw a person with screwed credit?

 

[Orignal Earl]

I wonder how Christian feel about this?

lol come on techs

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...ves/2009/05/023600.php

Yep, the good subsidizing the bad. Credit redistribution.

 

[jpeyton]

So the consensus is, people who are against this bill can't name a single provision within it that they disagree with, but they're afraid of the big bad credit card companies taking away their "perks".

:roll:

I stopped being afraid of the bogeyman when I was a child.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: techs
-snip-
While almost every religion has in it's doctrine some form of anti-usury prohibitions, it seems Christianity has some very strong views against usury, what with "Jesus and the moneychangers"

I was wondering if usury was still an important issue amongst Christians, and will their religious beliefs affect their opinion of this law?

"Moneychangers" are NOT lenders, and accordingly have nothing to do with usury or this CC article:

In the episode, Jesus is stated to have visited the Temple in Jerusalem, Herod's Temple, at which the courtyard is described as being filled with livestock and the tables of the money changers, who changed the standard Greek and Roman money for Jewish and Tyrian money, which were the only coinage that could be used in Temple ceremonies. According to the Gospels, Jesus took offense to this (extorting profit from the people to hear the word of God), and so, creating a whip from some cords, drives out the money changers, and turns over their tables, and those of the people selling doves Matthew[21:13]

I'm unaware of any rule on ususry in the New Testiment. (IIRC both Jews and Muslims have 'biblical' rules about this.)

So, I don't see how the one (CC law) has anything to do with the other (Christians), nor how Christians as a group care about this new law.

Fern

At the end are the Torah and Qur'an passages. The NT passages are questionable in their intent, being more parables than literal usury. However there is always the question of rather the Torah prohibitions were abolished by the new covenant.

Then there's sources outside the accepted bible, but still valid:

The Apostle Peter publicly told his vision: "And in another lake, full or pitch and blood and more bubbling up, there stood men and women on their knees: and these were usurers and those who had taken interest. . ." Antinicene Fathers, Vol. IX, p. 146. The Apostle Paul, in telling his vision, said: "And I saw another multitude of men and women, and worms consumed them. But I lamented and sighing asked the angel and said, 'Who are these?' And he said to me: These are those who exacted interest ON interest, and trusted in their riches and did not hope in God that He was their helper." Antinicene Fathers, Vol. IX, p. 160.

Then take into consideration that by and large the churches throughout early and into medieval times were against interest, such as established in the First Council of Carthage, the Decree of Gratian, and so on.

Of course, this may all be moot since even the early prohibitions were generally only between jews, or with regards to the poor. We could argue for a lifetime about that, however, without ever reaching a solution.

Torah:
If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest. (Exodus, 22:25 [15])

And if thy brother be waxen poor, and his means fail with thee; then thou shalt uphold him: as a stranger and a settler shall he live with thee. Take thou no interest of him or increase; but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon interest, nor give him thy victuals for increase. (Leviticus, 25:35-37)

Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest. Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it. (Deuteronomy, 23:20-21)

Qur'an:
Those who charge usury are in the same position as those controlled by the devil's influence. This is because they claim that usury is the same as commerce. However, God permits commerce, and prohibits usury. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgment rests with God. As for those who persist in usury, they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever (Al-Baqarah 2:275)

God condemns usury, and blesses charities.God dislikes every disbeliever, guilty. Lo! those who believe and do good works and establish worship and pay the poor-due, their reward is with their Lord and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. O you who believe, you shall observe God and refrain from all kinds of usury, if you are believers. If you do not, then expect a war from God and His messenger. But if you repent, you may keep your capitals, without inflicting injustice, or incurring injustice. If the debtor is unable to pay, wait for a better time. If you give up the loan as a charity, it would be better for you, if you only knew. (Al-Baqarah 2:276-280)

O you who believe, you shall not take usury, compounded over and over. Observe God, that you may succeed. (Al-'Imran 3:130)

And for practicing usury, which was forbidden, and for consuming the people's money illicitly. We have prepared for the disbelievers among them painful retribution. (Al-Nisa 4:161)

The usury that is practiced to increase some people's wealth, does not gain anything at God. But if people give to charity, seeking God's pleasure, these are the ones who receive their reward many fold. (Ar-Rum 30:39)

 

[PrinceofWands]

Personally, I see the need for reasonable interest on lending. I'd be all for a 10-15% charge cap, unalterable through the use of fees or other charges.

 

[fire400]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: spacejamz
Heard about this on the drive into work this morning...The credit card companies are just gonna find different ways to make up any lost revenues...

Some possibities include:

charging annual fees again
reducing credit card benefits
charging interest immediately instead of offering a grace period

Guess we will wait and see what happens...

all it seems to amount to is people with good credit who pay their bills on time getting screwed to subsidize people with bad credit.

To look on the bright side, hopefully it will give the credit card companies a win with making 'some' money and winning trust over their customers.

But then again... it's kind of laughable. I mean, what are people going to do, forget all over again, and fall into debt to the same companies, ... wow ...

 

[ranmaniac]

This is a good step, but if you want to really stick it to the credit card companies, Obama needs to restore the bankruptcy laws to where they were before the changes under GWB.

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: randalee
One thing that I am not liking about the bill. I am pro-gun, and pro national park concealed carry. However, they slipped the National Park Carry thing into this bill. While I am for the provision, I am VEHEMENTLY AGAINST them slipping it into a bill like this. Garbage like this happens all the time, and it drives me nuts.

^
I agree.

 

[Acanthus]

I fail to see how retroactive rate increases, giving cards to people under 18, giving cards to college students with no real income (borrowing on borrowed money), hiking rates for default on unrelated accounts, and charging off low interest debt first to maximise the pain on consumers was good for anyone but investors.

Please educate me on these practices if you feel so inclined.

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: Exterous
My wife and I have never had any problems with CC companies but maybe thats because we always pay our bills on time.

Originally posted by: Exterous
As for your second point I guess it depends on the CC company or the person you are dealing with for that day. We have accidentally made a couple of late payments and in those cases we were able to get them to drop the fees and restore the original interest rate (Although once I had to tell them to cancel the card and informed them I would be doing a balance transfer before they relented)

Did you just contradict yourself?

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
So the consensus is, people who are against this bill can't name a single provision within it that they disagree with, but they're afraid of the big bad credit card companies taking away their "perks".

:roll:

I stopped being afraid of the bogeyman when I was a child.

are you really that short sighted? How can you not see that if you are a person who pays your bills on time, but now have the possibility of having to pay an annual fee, getting charged interest immediately or even losing existing perks is a negative thing if you use your cards wisely???

Why don't you look at the end result of what this accomplishes, instead of being hung up on specific provisions??

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: jpeyton
So the consensus is, people who are against this bill can't name a single provision within it that they disagree with, but they're afraid of the big bad credit card companies taking away their "perks".

:roll:

I stopped being afraid of the bogeyman when I was a child.

are you really that short sighted? How can you not see that if you are a person who pays your bills on time, but now have the possibility of having to pay an annual fee, getting charged interest immediately or even losing existing perks is a negative thing if you use your cards wisely???

Why don't you look at the end result of what this accomplishes, instead of being hung up on specific provisions??

Again, which of the above practices i mentioned were a good thing for consumers.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: jpeyton
So the consensus is, people who are against this bill can't name a single provision within it that they disagree with, but they're afraid of the big bad credit card companies taking away their "perks".

:roll:

I stopped being afraid of the bogeyman when I was a child.

are you really that short sighted? How can you not see that if you are a person who pays your bills on time, but now have the possibility of having to pay an annual fee, getting charged interest immediately or even losing existing perks is a negative thing if you use your cards wisely???

Why don't you look at the end result of what this accomplishes, instead of being hung up on specific provisions??

Again, which of the above practices i mentioned were a good thing for consumers.

Not really sure what point you are trying to make in your post here...If you don't like the terms of the card, don't sign the dotted line...for those that did sign and used their cards responsbily, they will now be penalized through no fault of their own..

I fail to see how retroactive rate increases, giving cards to people under 18, giving cards to college students with no real income (borrowing on borrowed money), hiking rates for default on unrelated accounts, and charging off low interest debt first to maximise the pain on consumers was good for anyone but investors.

I don't see how that relates to my discussion with jpyton who cant seem to understand how this will negatively impact the people who pay their bills on time and use their cards wisely...

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: spacejamz
but now have the possibility of having to pay an annual fee, getting charged interest immediately or even losing existing perks is a negative thing if you use your cards wisely???

Everything you mentioned is hypothetical.

Originally posted by: spacejamz
Not really sure what point you are trying to make in your post here...If you don't like the terms of the card, don't sign the dotted line...for those that did sign and used their cards responsbily, they will now be penalized through no fault of their own..

If you don't like the new hypothetical terms of your card, don't use them. If anything, you should be thanking this new bill for exposing the fact that you're doing business with snakes.

 

[lupi]

Most of my CC business is done through a credit union so I pretty sure this will have somewhere in the neighborhood of 0 effect on me.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Damn straight, once again the smart and responsible get to pay for the idiots that fucked everything up

How much is your bill going to be for the "idiots that fucked everything up"?

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: spacejamz
but now have the possibility of having to pay an annual fee, getting charged interest immediately or even losing existing perks is a negative thing if you use your cards wisely???

Everything you mentioned is hypothetical.

so the credit card companies who are going to probably lose a significant amount of revenue because they can no longer gouge consumers using their current methods are not going to seek alternate source of revenue?

Here's a simple question for you...How will they make up this lost revenue without degrading the services they provide to their users or without increasing fees or interest charges?

as I asked before, are you really that short sighted??

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Damn straight, once again the smart and responsible get to pay for the idiots that fucked everything up

How much is your bill going to be for the "idiots that fucked everything up"?

Someone will have to get back to you when this goes into effect and the card companies determine what new ways to gouge their users since they can no longer just target the deadbeats that are not paying...