Funny, the biggest opposition comes from conservatives who are primarily Christians who’s founder went on a rampage against money lenders. You’d think they would be the first to want to do the same against today’s money grubbing scoundrels.

You’ve got to love the banking industry.

As our friends in the financial sector were passing the hat among taxpayers last week for $700 billion in bailouts to cover their crappy mortgage investments, they were simultaneously condemning the House of Representatives’ passage of a “Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights,” which aims to crack down on some of the industry’s more troublesome practices.

The legislation — HR 5244 — would, among other things, end card issuers’ self-proclaimed right to change interest rates at any time. […] It also would give cardholders more time to pay by requiring issuers to mail bills at least 25 days before the due date, as opposed to the current 14 days.

[…] “We are very concerned that this bill would significantly hinder our ability to price the risks of lending and would result in less credit being made available to creditworthy borrowers at the worst possible time, with generally higher prices for those who do receive credit,” said Bank of America Corp. spokeswoman Betty Riess.

Nonsense.

“They’re using the I’ll-take-my-toys-and-go-home argument,” said Linda Sherry, a spokeswoman for Consumer Action. “But that won’t be the case. They’ll keep fighting for our business.”

[…]A Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights would level the playing field by protecting consumers from questionable late fees and sudden rate hikes, and requiring clear disclosure of terms and conditions.

That doesn’t seem too much to ask of an industry that has no problem asking taxpayers to cover its bad bets.

And even if the result might be a few more people with risky credit are turned down for cards, is that such a bad thing given the volume of debt citizen’s now have?




  1. Mister Mustard says:

    #39 – LL

    >>35, Do you wear a girdle when you get into
    >>your nanny mode

    WTF is that supposed to mean? Is it just another one of your endearing non sequiturs, or was there an actual point?

    I had 3 points:

    1) CC companies are sleazy, and don’t inform card holders in a reasonable way about changes to their acount.

    2) Some peoploe have excessive credit card debt because they are spendthrifts

    3) Some people have excessive credit card debt due to circumstances beyond their control

    and there was a fourth implicit point, one that I have mede explicitly in previous posts: These sleazy bastards need to be regulated up the ass, regulated to the point where they’re crying “Uncle”. All the damage they’ve done to consumers over the years should not go unpunished, and it should CERTAINLY not be allowed to continue.

  2. Paddy-O says:

    #42 “Right. Except, in contrast to regular welfare (which helps people who need help), this is welfare to help keep Financial Titans in 100-foot yachts, second (and third and fourth and fifth….and seventh) homes, etc.”

    Yep.

  3. LibertyLover says:

    #41, and there was a fourth implicit point, one that I have mede explicitly in previous posts: These sleazy bastards need to be regulated up the ass, regulated to the point where they’re crying “Uncle”. All the damage they’ve done to consumers over the years should not go unpunished, and it should CERTAINLY not be allowed to continue.

    That’s point I was making. You seem to think people can’t think for themselves or learn from their mistakes or be responsible for their own actions.

    You think the government should protect them from themselves.

    That is a nanny attitude. As every nanny I’ve ever seen was some old lady, I was wondering if you wear a girdle when you get into nanny mode. Understand it now or should I send a picture?

  4. LibertyLover says:

    #42, No money for early childhood education or universal health care, but when some Wall Street wankers need to upgrade their 70-foot yacht to a hundred-footer, all of a sudden we’re running the money presses 24/7.

    I hate to break it to you but we already spend more money on social programs than anything else. Why do you think we’re so broke?

    http://tinyurl.com/9e24r

    Don’t get me wrong, I am adamantly opposed to the bailout. But I think the reason for opposing it shouldn’t be “for the children” unless it’s because you don’t want them paying for the debt for the next 50 years.

    It should be because it’s just wrong to pay for other people’s mistakes in this fashion.

  5. #44 – LL

    >>That’s point I was making. You seem to think
    >>people can’t think for themselves or learn
    >>from their mistakes or be responsible for
    >>their own actions.

    Oh. I get it now. You think someone who has been devastated by cancer or heart disease, or whose job has been offshored to some sweatshop in Mumbai should just suck it in and not go into debt. I see.

    If that’s your stance, why cap interest rates at 36%? That’s excessive government interference in the “free market”, don’t you think? How about 50% per day, and if you don’t pay up, guys with baseball bats come to your home?

    I don’t consider what I’m promoting to be anything like a “nanny state”, it’s just insuring that predatory f&cks like the credit card companies don’t take unfair advantage of those who are most vulnerable. Which is exactly what they’ve been doing.

  6. LibertyLover says:

    #44, Well, when you put it that way, it sounds reasonable.

    However, reasonable sounding plans have done nothing but put the country in debt. I stand by my assertion.

  7. hmmWhat? says:

    My question is where did all these $ come from in the first place that the banks are lending? I am going out on a limb and I personally haven’t done a lot of research into it, but doesn’t the banks borrow/ get loaned from federal reserve/central bank?

    So in an essence, the reserve/central bank were also giving bad loans to the banks who gave bad loans to the customer… domino effect. The federal reserve made a bad investment, thus did the banks and the customers who took the loan also “in an essence” made a bad investment/decision in what they did with the money…

    I guess the point of my comment is if the reserve/central bank lent the $ to the banks in the first place… what’s the point of having taxpayers pay the tab when the central bank could just forgive the bad debt, thus banks forgiving the bad debt they gave to customers.. start over, taxpayers are left with the bill… banks clean up their regulations, guidelines and learn from their mistakes.

    Just my 2 cents.

  8. The credit card is still one of the most popular means of payment and will be replaced increasingly by Paypal & Co. Due to the security of Paypal it would be safer to use this more in the future.

  9. tv online says:

    I wanna recomand you a nice website to watch your favorites tv channels online: http://www.tv-online-live.com


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5447 access attempts in the last 7 days.