Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would think that it was anticipation of the credit card companies jacking up the rates that caused the Senate to entertain the idea of freezing rates immediately. So if the Republicans vote not to freeze rates, aren't they actually giving permission to credit card companies to jack up the rates?
My point is that the original legislation should have taken care of the pre-meditated increase in rates. Rate increases in advance of the legislation being enacted should have been prohibited then, not now, after millions of Americans have experienced the increase. Dodd and Democrats couldn't be any more stupid if they didn't see this coming. Should the GOP block it now? Probably not. But that doesn't excuse Dodd and the Democrats for their original incompetence and lack of foresight.
My point is that the original legislation should have taken care of the pre-meditated increase in rates. Rate increases in advance of the legislation being enacted should have been prohibited then. Dodd and Democrats couldn't be any more stupid if they didn't see this coming. Should the GOP block it now? Probably not. But that doesn't excuse Dodd and the Democrats for their original incompetence and lack of foresight.
But if you concur that the Republicans shouldn't be blocking a rate freeze now, then you are not absolving them of all blame as rates are raised. Right?
My point is that the original legislation should have taken care of the pre-meditated increase in rates. Rate increases in advance of the legislation being enacted should have been prohibited then. Dodd and Democrats couldn't be any more stupid if they didn't see this coming. Should the GOP block it now? Probably not. But that doesn't excuse Dodd and the Democrats for their original incompetence and lack of foresight.
Aero I understand your point, but this is a prime example of these folks inability to work on anything bi-partisan. Why didn't the Republicans come up with an alternative? Why didn't BOTH the Republican and Democrats put some type of measure in place? I agree, the democrats knew these card companies were going to jack up the rates, and so did the republicans. THEY ALL SAT ON THEIR COLLECTIVE AZZS AND DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AS USUAL, but bicker like a bunch of children. But I guess that's acceptable
But if you concur that the Republicans shouldn't be blocking a rate freeze now, then you are not absolving them of all blame as rates are raised. Right?
Nope. But millions of American's have already had a rate increase. Most of the blame goes to Dodd and Democrats.
Supply and demand, guys. If everybody simply quit using plastic and started paying down their debt the banks would drop rates. Simple.
Consumption would fall. Unemployment would rise. House prices would fall. Car sales would fall. In a few years it would feel like 1950 again. There would not be enough demand to keep mom and dad working. Mom would stay home. Our standard of living would decrease from a materialistic standpoint. Credit and moms in the workforce collectivley increased demand for products and services over the last 40 years. Nobody paid $4 for a cup of coffee years ago, even adjusted for inflation. It is a simple equation. It is not political. I have seen the enemy and it is us.
Nope. But millions of American's have already had a rate increase. Most of the blame goes to Dodd and Democrats.
How can you take that position? Logically speaking, Republicans have the power to work with Democrats to prevent additional rate hikes. They refuse to do that, and are blocking the Democrats from acting alone.
So they are permitting credit card companies to further raise rates, something you think should be stopped, but since it's Republicans allowing it to happen, you're fine with it?????
With record foreclosures and loan defaults there is a vast group of Americans who have fallen into the debt pit and the numbers keep growing. As credit card companies raise their interest rate they only invite more and more defaults. According to Nightly News credit card companies are now requiring a credit score of at least 740 to get a new credit card. I wonder how important a good credit history is as we see record numbers of people with a bad credit event. If banks limit their credit to only those with the best credit they will not have enough customers to sustain their profits. Without customer credit retailers will fold like a wet newspaper. Secondly, as banks raise the charges for credit cards especially through annual usage fees people who have been paying off their charges will switch to debit cards or cash.
The current trend is with upside mortgages is simply to walk away. How long before others just walk away from car loans and credit card debt? Banks are leaving few options other than to just walk away.
My point is that the original legislation should have taken care of the pre-meditated increase in rates. Rate increases in advance of the legislation being enacted should have been prohibited then, not now, after millions of Americans have experienced the increase. Dodd and Democrats couldn't be any more stupid if they didn't see this coming. Should the GOP block it now? Probably not. But that doesn't excuse Dodd and the Democrats for their original incompetence and lack of foresight.
Aero, again I agree with some of what your saying, but back to the the bi-partisan. Instead of the GOP stoping their feet, foldering their arms "VOTING NO" then beating their chest proudly that they voted NO...WHY not make the attempt to say "you need to include this"....Had the democrats said no, then 8 months later we're hit with this, then I would Totally agree with you.
But the GOP did NOTHING and instead of rectifying what the Dems failed to do, again they stomped their feet, folder their arms and "voted NO".
How can you take that position? Logically speaking, Republicans have the power to work with Democrats to prevent additional rate hikes. They refuse to do that, and are blocking the Democrats from acting alone.
So they are permitting credit card companies to further raise rates, something you think should be stopped, but since it's Republicans allowing it to happen, you're fine with it?????
Work with? Who needs Republicans to craft, draft, vote on, and enact a bill in this political climate?
Nobody. This is all the work of Dodd and his cronies. Although he did have some bi-partisan support, they screwed it up.
My point? Chris Dodd drew up a law with an incredible lack of foresight, and millions of American's are paying a higher cost because of it.
Should the GOP block the freeze. Nope. But you're being ridiculous if you can't agree that Dodd and his Democratic numb-skulls couldn't see this coming. They needed not one single vote from Republicans, so to equally blame this on the GOP is not being very honest.
I do blame the GOP, but Dodd gets MUCH MORE of the blame for incompetence. Something tells me a backroom deal was made on the date of enactment, although I have no proof of that.
Last edited by AeroGuyDC; 11-19-2009 at 02:48 PM..
But look at it this way. Your buddy Jack's water heater bursts, and Jack asks you to loan him $100, just until his commission check comes in. You lend it to him, but when his commission check arrives, it's short. Jack says, I thought I could cover it, but I can't. But I'll pay you back $40 this week, and $40 next week and $20 the week after. Do you then say, okay, I'll take your $40, but I'll only credit you $20, and so on, so that you'll still owe me $50 after you've paid the $100 back. Or do you say, look, I need the money, too, I'll tell you what, $40 now,$40 next week and $25 the week after and we'll call it done.
Because on the one hand you're taking advantage of a person, and on the other hand you're extending credit to a person.
And credit card companies don't like people who pay in full each month. They offer them deals because it's a marketing ploy to get them to spend and not pay in full each month. Credit card companies really love the ones who spend and then pay only the minimum each month, because it's those consumers who will maximize the credit card's profits.
Too many factors in that which imply emotional direction.
Lets do it this way.
Jack asks me to loan him $100 dollars.
Jack states he will pay me back in full next week.
Jack comes back and says "sorry, no can do, I'm going to renegotiate the contract here and only pay you a part of the money back and on terms I decide".
Lets stop there for a sec.
Jack isn't in a position to renegotiate. Jack doesn't get to demand changes to the deal, he made a deal, jack should hold to the deal, he gave his word he would.
I tell Jack that he made a deal, but I am willing to allow his conditions, but he will pay a penalty for changing the conditions so I charge him a late penalty for such.
How much? Well, that becomes an issue. You see, Jack had no problems changing the conditions on me and expecting me to accept his conditions. So I am free to change the conditions on him based on his penalty of breaking the conditions on our original agreement.
So, I charge him money for breaking that deal and because he is taking much longer to pay me back than he originally agreed to, I will charge him a late penalty and now charge him interest over the time to pay me back.
This way, Jack can keep changing his position all he likes, but I am covered for his breaking his word to me. He doesn't cause me hardships because I now gain something rather than loose something in the process.
In your suggested deal, you make 5 dollars for loaning a 100 dollars to a guy who said he would pay you back in 1 week, but ended up taking 4 weeks total to do it. If you loaned money based on that practice, you would go out of business not to mention, if you were counting on that money to free up for other issues, you would be put in a bad position as well. Jack knows he broke his word and Jack should accept he must make up for this in an honest manner. Penalties are not "evil", they are simply consequences for failure to meet ones required responsibility.
Now I may cut him a break, I may not. Jack lost the say in that when he went into business with me and then broke his word. Many businesses will cut people deals on their delinquency, I have seen good customers who have fallen behind get these breaks many times. The business knows the customer has a good record and is willing to work with them because the customer is an asset.
On the other side, I have seen customers who are constantly delinquent and are actually a liability to the company. They cost them money and if they "worked" with them, the person would simply take advantage of that and continue to cost them money (seen that many times as well).
By assessing penalties and fines freely, the business if it is willing to continue accruing customers will apply them appropriately.
In the end, a business who loans money is not a charity, they are there to make money and we must view it in this manner or we hold a business to conditions that is unjust.
You could just as easily switch out the loan money scenario to any other type of business and when you do that, you start to see how it is unreasonable to expect a loan company to act in that manner.
Last edited by Nomander; 11-19-2009 at 02:56 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
