Banks Bash Bailout Bill’s Credit Card Curbs

Published on September 28th, 2008

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?

48 users responded in " Banks Bash Bailout Bill’s Credit Card Curbs "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Mister Mustard said, on September 28th, 2008 at 4:32 am

Credit card companies should eat shit and die. If regular humans tried the kind of shit that credit card companies routinely pull, they’d be charged with loan sharking, usury, and general all-around moral turpitude. If you’re late on a utility bill, they can crank up your interest rate to 36%, they show “minimum payments” that will allow you to die still owing a credit card balance, their FF miles programs are pretty much useless, ad nauseum.

I’m pissed about those latter-day Shylocks, and I don’t even carry a credit card balance. Ever.

Those bastards need to be clamped down on, hard.

# 2 Breetai said, on September 28th, 2008 at 4:52 am

One thing that is pretty clear is that their tactics are what got them (and us) in this mess. The loan sharking backfired… Seriously what did they expect? Every single bank and credit executive deserves to be fired and put in jail for fraud.

# 3 pedro said, on September 28th, 2008 at 4:58 am

#1 Paraphrasing another regular poster here: The fact that you don’t know how to use a credit card doesn’t mean you have to get pissy about it.

# 4 Miss_X2b said, on September 28th, 2008 at 4:59 am

Don’t worry, even after we hand the banks $700 billion you can rest assured they’ll be back for more. What they’re doing now amounts to extortion and our spineless politicians will keep giving our money away. No doubt some of these politicians are probably getting their pockets well greased for the favor.

# 5 LibertyLover said, on September 28th, 2008 at 5:05 am

#1, Credit card companies should eat shit and die. If regular humans tried the kind of shit that credit card companies routinely pull, they’d be charged with loan sharking, usury, and general all-around moral turpitude. If you’re late on a utility bill, they can crank up your interest rate to 36%, they show “minimum payments” that will allow you to die still owing a credit card balance, their FF miles programs are pretty much useless, ad nauseum.

I’m pissed about those latter-day Shylocks, and I don’t even carry a credit card balance. Ever.

I never thought I would agree so strongly with you any subject, but I do on this!

Those bastards need to be clamped down on, hard.

I agree on this as well. However, it should be the consumers that do the cracking down, not the government.

# 6 bobbo said, on September 28th, 2008 at 5:11 am

#5–LL==why are you against regulation even of clear abuse? Use this very example of credit cards as a good example. It is DEMONSTRATED that the free market does not curb this excise, saying that it “should” really misses the point.

# 7 Mister Mustard said, on September 28th, 2008 at 5:25 am

#5 – LibertyLover

>>I agree on this as well. However, it should be
>>the consumers that do the cracking down

How do they do that? By spending an hour or two pressing 1 for English, pressing 5 for account information, blah blah blah, and then yelling at the poor schmuck in Mumbai or Chennai? Even in the unlikely event that he tells a supervisor about it, they’ll just laugh and answer the next call.

It’s the government or nothing. That’s what the government is there for; to protect us from enemies, foreign and domestic.

And the credit card companies certainly are our enemy.

# 8 LibertyLover said, on September 28th, 2008 at 6:03 am

#7, How do they do that?

The same way you admitted to doing it.

If they know they are going to be bailed out by the government where is the incentive to do the right thing?

“If we raise the rates on our credit cards this month, we’ll have a 4.8% default rate. The government will bail us out but we’ll make an extra $36M.”

“If we raise the rates on our credit cards this month, we’ll have a 4.8% default rate. The government will not bail us out so we’ll lose $4M.”

Gee, I wonder which one makes more sense?

# 9 Mr. Fusion said, on September 28th, 2008 at 6:15 am

As with every regulation, this came about because of abuse. By taking credit card regulation away from the States, we now have the usury seen today.

Congress should either regulate the industry or allow the States to. The linked article has a poll which showed 98% of respondents want some regulation. That is a difficult number to argue with.

# 10 LibertyLover said, on September 28th, 2008 at 6:25 am

#9, The linked article has a poll which showed 98%

Without more information on the questions presented, I have to take that number at face-value. I find it high, though.

What concerned me was the $17,000 — average — balance. This isn’t the fault of the credit card companies. This is the fault of the consumer. I don’t carry a balance. MM doesn’t carry a balance. Quite a few people I know personally don’t carry a balance or even have a credit card.

This law will do nothing more than force the companies to float the bad loans longer, thus taking the responsibility of the loan off of the consumer. People need to be held responsible for their own screw-ups. A $17,000 credit card balance is a screw-up in my opinion.

Why would a credit card company extend that kind of credit to someone who couldn’t afford it in the first place?

# 11 Eric said, on September 28th, 2008 at 6:29 am

One way for citizen regulation would be to allow for real negotiation of the terms on the contract. Imagine if you could cross out the stuff you don’t agree with*, or negotiate grace periods, interest rate increases, etc. As it stands now, they are all take it or leave it, especially when it comes to timing of payments (they are very good at getting you into a default situation, especially during the grace periods). And the banks are basically lemmings when it comes to the contracts, so if one bank gets a creative contract, they are all quick to adopt the same language.

*and they would have the chance to counter-offer.

# 12 Montanaguy said, on September 28th, 2008 at 6:36 am

I’ve always looked at the credit card companies as akin to the mafia, with the vigorish they take on these cards. It is a setup to keep people ‘on the vig’ for life. I would like to see some sort of limits put on the cards, I don’t really know how, but some regulation that severely limits how much credit they can give someone until that person clearly demonstrates an ongoing ability to pay off most or all of their credit card most of the time, at least. And once someone is not able to do this, severely limiting that persons use of any credit card. I realize it is protectionist and ‘nannie-state’, but the credit card companies prey on the very young and vulnerable. They WANT people to be in perpetual debt and that stinks.

# 13 pedro said, on September 28th, 2008 at 6:36 am

#10 That’s the point. People use credit cards as if they were portals to an endless fountain of free money.

# 14 Eric said, on September 28th, 2008 at 6:39 am

#10 – I’m always suspect of that number. First of all, it is an average. I wish the media would start to look at mean or median statistics instead of average, since abnormally low numbers of excessively high values (huh?) will inflate the average.

Also, how many people are using the “no interest” period as a free loan? A few years ago a friend put a sunroom on his house. He had the cash to pay for it ($20,000), but he put it on a credit card that had no interest for a year in order to get some interest from a savings account, and for the buyer protection. Even though it showed as a debt, it could have been cleared immediately. I would think the same thing happens all the time with small businesses. They have the money available, but it is easier from an accounting standpoint to use a card for expenses.

That said, I’m sure there are many people with huge credit card bills relative to their take home pay.

# 15 Lou Minatti said, on September 28th, 2008 at 6:53 am

Why do you hate Christians? It’s like a weird compulsion with you. This must be your diary:

“Dear Diary,

Today I went to the store and bought myself a shirt. I saw a Christian. I bet they don’t shop in that store. They are weird!

- Uncle Dave”

Uncle Dave, why are you afraid to mock Moslems?

# 16 LibertyLover said, on September 28th, 2008 at 6:57 am

#13, #10 That’s the point. People use credit cards as if they were portals to an endless fountain of free money.

So you agree this is another case of “the government will take care of you?”

Hogwash. People should be responsible for the own actions.

And credit card companies should educate their customers on proper use.

# 17 brendal said, on September 28th, 2008 at 7:05 am

Where’s your data? You can’t just say most Republicans are Christians…are you out of your mind?? Well, I guess you can, but you are really putting your credibility in doubt by saying so…if that means anything to you at all (and I guess it doesn’t).

BTW, I grew up in the South, and I know TONS of Southern Democrats who are DEVOUT Christians…

# 18 QB said, on September 28th, 2008 at 7:35 am

Man this drives me crazy. I personally think (this is just my opinion) that the US politicians are dancing around an issue with this.

Personal debt in the US is ridiculously high. The average working person in the US has 9 credit cards and racks up close to $20,000 in long term debt per year on them. You can bitch about the credit squeeze all you want but this is about everyone in the US (wage earners to government to businesses) growing up and living within their means.

The rest of the world has learned this or is learning this. Ten years of hard times ahead for the US. Bummer, but that’s life. This will be a fundamental cultural shift for the US to get people to “think and act” differently. Bad timing though with all those baby boomers retiring and the US welfare state ramping up to service them.

# 19 jbellies said, on September 28th, 2008 at 7:46 am

The old Limeliters’ song, Marvin.

One thing they should put on the bill, if it isn’t there already, is that every bank customer should be allowed to pay the balance automatically, just like a utility bill. The credit card bill is the only one that I have to think about. Why? They’re hoping I forget, so they can start charging interest.

There should also be a law which allows vendors who accept credit cards to give discounts for cash. I remember over a decade ago that such a thing was illegal in the State of Washington.

# 20 gooddebate said, on September 28th, 2008 at 8:01 am

Why are we surprised that an industry would want to prevent rules that don’t benefit it?

Just like the government; The executive, legislative and even the judiciary make rules that benefit itself; shocking…

So expect them to continue to defy common sense and the public, to pass the 700b and say well, we just know better, it’ll be good for you.

Does any one have an opinion if the government should come in and start voiding contracts? That’s what they’re talking about. I don’t like CEO golden parachutes either but voiding contracts? Wouldn’t that be worse?

Be prepared to be saying ‘but it’s for the good of society’ a lot in the future if the government starts voiding contracts.

# 21 Mr. Fusion said, on September 28th, 2008 at 8:01 am

#10, LL,

Without more information on the questions presented, I have to take that number at face-value. I find it high, though.

The solution would be to go to the linked article and see the poll for yourself. You did read the linked article, didn’t you?

# 22 AlanB said, on September 28th, 2008 at 8:07 am

True story: I went to my credit union to bowwow $20,000 to but some acreage in Northern AZ. They said 7.5% and I said fine. I like to support my CU. When I went to sign the papers they had slipped in a prepayment penalty. I said see ya later.

My good credit earned me a $25,000 limit on one of my cards. They did a balance transfer into my checking account (which I used to buy the land) at a prommo rate of 2.9% for one year. When the year was up I asked them to extend the rate. They said no, I said see ya later. I got a new card with a promotional rate of 0% for 15 months. At the end of that term the land will be mine for at an average cost of less that 1.5% using credit cards. Hee, hee, hee.

# 23 msitarzewski said, on September 28th, 2008 at 8:13 am

#5 – bobbo

The free market *would* fix this kind of behavior but our lovely government won’t let it. Think of what would happen to those companies and the consumers that got in over their heads if the government hadn’t bailed them out.

The lenders and the buyers are at fault, and now for some reason *I* get to pay for it. I have no debt, and a growing net worth… I’ve been responsible with my money. Why should I pay?

I would really like to see WaMU, and all of the other idiot companies just die.

# 24 gooddebate said, on September 28th, 2008 at 8:16 am

#1 Ya, lets bring back the good old days of debtors prison for deadbeats instead of charging them 36 percent interest. I don’t know about you but I’ve never been charged that. And every time I call and ask about a late fee that was my fault it’s been waved. Now I realize that this is anecdotal but I have to ask, what do you have to do to get that kind of charge? Maybe it’s the fact that I’ve only had late payment 4 or 5 times in 20 years.

BTW, I’ve quit using credit as much as possible, what great timing. Only my mortgage left. Talk about a nice sense of calm.

# 25 RTaylor said, on September 28th, 2008 at 8:20 am

Many are missing the bigger picture. Our economy is so dependent on credit, it would collapse without it. I mean a collapse of Biblical proportions, not a bubble. The worlds economy would quickly follow. Wouldn’t be a nice time to live through.

# 26 pedro said, on September 28th, 2008 at 8:54 am

#16 people shouldn’t do things they don’t know how to use. It’s like teenagers and sex. They get pregnant and can’t handle the outcome but hey, the sex part was good.

It’s a shared responsability. Sure, the CC companies should tell people how to use them, but people are as liable if they don’t know what they’re doing.

But please, don’t tell me is too damned hard to understand even the most basic CC brochure that outlines the liability usign it (interest) & its misusage. Lazyness abounds. It’s easier to blame someone else.

# 27 pedro said, on September 28th, 2008 at 9:00 am

#18 What rest of the world? I know people in latin american have no clue what it means to live within their means.

#23 For a free market to work, you need informed people like #22. Good luck finding many like him.

# 28 QB said, on September 28th, 2008 at 9:35 am

LOL. Pedro, did you just benchmark the US economy against individuals in Latin America? Nice.

# 29 Stu said, on September 28th, 2008 at 9:37 am

Credit card interest isn’t the only issue with banks.

I had an account with a bank that America in its name. It was used to receive funds, which I then transferred out to my personal account. I always stayed well above the minimum balance (for no fees).

All of a sudden a $35 fee for one month over minimum. On investigating, they said I was notified. Turns out it was hidden in the multi-page – fine print – legal notice enclosed with EVERY STATEMENT. Tough luck (in almost those words).

So, let’s see. They have teams of high priced lawyers writing this stuff, in legal terminology that other lawyers would have trouble understanding. They send pages of the crap out every month.

What are we supposed to do, hire a lawyer every month to interpret it?

There is no recourse, except reasonable regulation.

Of course, I pulled my accounts and wrote a letter to the president of the bank – a futile exercise, I know.

When it happens at the next bank, I’ll do the same. It’s better than feeling helpless – even though I am.

It’s all OK because I can cook pancakes on my iPhone.

Please be citizens, not just fans. Vote.

# 30 Lou said, on September 28th, 2008 at 10:47 am

Just a bunch of money grubbing Whores. Fuck them !

# 31 pedro said, on September 28th, 2008 at 10:49 am

#28 I was just comparing credit card usage/debt habits.

# 32 ibdense said, on September 28th, 2008 at 12:38 pm

JOHN – here’s a Poll question for you to put up:

Do you know the term usury or remember laws against it?

# 33 Glenn E. said, on September 28th, 2008 at 2:35 pm

The credit card industry operates a lot like the car insurance industry. The Car insurers will sell anyone a policy, no matter how danger a driver they are. It’s just a matter of upping their premium. Just ask pedestrians in Florida, who live near old people and their huge cars.

# 34 Mister Mustard said, on September 28th, 2008 at 7:35 pm

#19 – Jbellies

>>every bank customer should be allowed to pay the
>>[credit card] balance automatically, just like a
>>utility bill

How are they going to pay it automatically? Charge it to their credit card? The only other option is to deduct from their checking account, and imagine the fine kettle of fish you’d be in when some bogus $10,000 charge appears on your bill, and all your checks start bouncing. It would take a year to straighten that mess out.

No thanks.

I get my credit card bill, review it for any charges that look suspicious, and then e-pay the bill. I like it better that way.

# 35 Mister Mustard said, on September 28th, 2008 at 7:44 pm

#24 – GoodDebate

>>…instead of charging them 36 percent
>>interest. I don’t know about you but I’ve
>>never been charged that.

Neither have I. In fact, I haven’t been charged ANYTHING for over 15 years, b/c I always pay my bill off every month. Looking at the mysterious 8-page, single-spaced, double-sided, 6-pt font form letters they send me every now and then with IMPORTANT INFORMATINO ABOUT MY ACCOUNT, I see they have the right to do that. At any time. For almost any reason.

Some people carry a credit card balance because they have no self-restraint, and can’t stay out of the day spa, away from the power-boat dealer, choose to eat filet mignon on a hamburger paycheck, etc. They should get whatever’s coming to them.

Others carry one because some emergency (medical, job loss, etc.) has left them without enough money for basic necessities for their family, or other circumstances beyond their control have made it necessary to borrow money. Credit card companies are a little bit (a very little bit) better than the guys with the broken noses and baseball bats, so that’s where they go. Those people should not be subjected to the virtually regulation-free abuse that credit card companies are capable of inflicting on them. And THEY are the ones who are being charged 36% interest. The ones who are paying $3600/yr on a $10,000 credit card bill.

That should be illegal.

# 36 hmmWhat? said, on September 28th, 2008 at 9:01 pm

To everyone here… Curious.. has or does anyone know exactly what is going to happen yet if the proposed plan passes?

In other words, has anybody said or is it anywhere that ppl who racked up debt and past paying or now charged off, etc.. now being bailed out??

Seems if that is the case, they just eliminated a ton of collections jobs? Right? Concerning debt and ppl blaming the ppl in it.. well, folks may disagree with me but to me it’s a slippery slope.

Yea.. ppl borrowed that $ and they owe it.. but I know people who are honest, never late on a payment for years, etc etc who just got themselves in total Sh*t situations and the only way they tried to fix or could fix was to charge while trying to recover & pay back but just ended up digging themselves deeper to the point of losing hope and pretty much everything ..

It happens and sure lot of people have a sad story while others are fortunate to make the right decisions everyday and not be in this position. However, these folks who were months behind were still getting CC applications and pre-approved Loan Offers… It’s like the CC’s knew they were in a bad time of life, need $ to pay others and waving this in front of them to take…

I’m sorry but think lot of this happened bc ppl unfortunately got themselves in the scenario of borrowing from Bill to pay John, then borrowing for Henry to pay Bill & so on etc etc. Same thing for banks, they were doing the same exact thing.

Again, it’s a slippery slope for me and everyone’s to blame and of course there is just the deadbeats who had no intention of ever paying a penny.. but the main question is, are these individual ppl being bailed out? or are we bailing the banks who still going to sue folks or place judgements.???

# 37 Mister Mustard said, on September 28th, 2008 at 9:28 pm

#36 – Hmmm

>>are these individual ppl being bailed out? or
>>are we bailing the banks who still going to
>>sue folks or place judgements.???

Based on current trends, I’d say the latter.

That’s the New Socialism. F&ck the individual people; protect Wall St., banks, etc. The only individual people benefitting from this redistribution of wealth are obscenely-overpaid mega-millionaires.

# 38 pedro said, on September 28th, 2008 at 10:23 pm

Famous lasts words: “I want socialism”

# 39 LibertyLover said, on September 29th, 2008 at 3:46 am

#21, Without more information on the questions presented, I have to take that number at face-value. I find it high, though.

The solution would be to go to the linked article and see the poll for yourself. You did read the linked article, didn’t you?

Yes, I did and my apologies for the way I worded my statement.

I was really trying to figure out was what all was included in the question other that “We want it, we might want it, we don’t want it.” I suppose if no one knew what was in the bill other than talking points, those would be enough.

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

# 40 Paddy-O said, on September 29th, 2008 at 4:25 am

#37 “Based on current trends, I’d say the latter.”

I’m sure there will be no debt relief for the people on Main street. This is yet another socialist welfare program.

# 41 Mister Mustard said, on September 29th, 2008 at 4:29 am

#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.

# 42 Mister Mustard said, on September 29th, 2008 at 6:10 am

#40 – Paddy-O

>>I’m sure there will be no debt relief for the
>>people on Main street. This is yet another
>>socialist welfare program.

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.

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.

# 43 Paddy-O said, on September 29th, 2008 at 6:19 am

#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.

# 44 LibertyLover said, on September 29th, 2008 at 7:51 am

#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?

# 45 LibertyLover said, on September 29th, 2008 at 7:57 am

#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.

# 46 Mister Mustard said, on September 29th, 2008 at 7:59 am

#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.

# 47 LibertyLover said, on September 29th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

#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.

# 48 hmmWhat? said, on September 30th, 2008 at 5:14 pm

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.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!