WaterMan Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 bullmanure. let me say it slower this time so maybe you'll understand. if I and others like me present a low risk of default, then the banks can make good money giving me credit at a low margin. that takes advantage of no one. under the old, evil "predatory" system, customers could be treated as individuals. low risk customers got good deals, high risk customers got bad deals because they couldn't be counted on to pay back. obviously, each individual had complete power to determine whether the arrangement being offered suited their needs or not. now what is being implemented are rules saying that it is not fair for people who present a high credit risk to be asked to pay for that risk. someone else has to pay for it. net result, the banks are being forced to treat everyone the same, regardless of the risk they present. a collectivist system, if you will. in other words, those of us who pose a low risk get to subsidize the risk of lending to people with poorer credit. So the rich got pampered again. I see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 This is the most chicken little tripe I've seen in a while. The CC lobbyists have hooked some big fish in our Huddle pond. Money is the root of all evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted May 22, 2009 Author Share Posted May 22, 2009 Money is the root of all evil. greed is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 So the rich got pampered again. I see. You are either a complete and hopeless moran, or the Huddle's greatest fisherman. Either way, your parents must be proud... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I'm just tired of all the scare tactics and this is just the latest one. Here are some other recent ones. Idea: limit the pay of CEOs for companies that receive federal bailout money so they can stop paying themselves ridiculous amounts of money while the company is fighting to survive. Scare tactic: you can't do that or these CEOs will not have the money to spend that keeps the economy of places like NY city alive. Restaurants and businesses will be forced to close. People will lose their jobs. Idea: Put laws in place so that companies stop using off-shore tax havens to avoid paying millions in federal taxes Scare tactic: you can't do that or these companies will just fold up their tents and move their entire operations out of the country. People will lose their jobs. The cities where these companies are located will turn into ghost towns. Idea: Put laws in place to require automobile manufacturers to produce vehicles that are more fuel efficient thus making our country less dependent on foreign oil and at the same time helping the environment. Scare tactic: you can't do that or car companies will be forced to make smaller and lighter vehicles meaning that they will be less safe. There will be more deaths each year related to auto accidents. There will be blood in the streets I tell you! You can basically come up with a scare tactic for any idea that is thrown out there and this latest one regarding the credit card law is just another. Higher interest rates, annual fees, elimination of perks such Cash Back Bonuses, Sky Miles, etc. In addition to the scare tactic this issue also incorporates the now too familiar "we vs. they" approach for pitting us against each other. "We" lose our credit card perks because "they" can't pay their bills. The really ironic part is that many of the opponents of this bill are the same people who constantly tout the market forces of competition as the greatest underlying force of our economy. Well do these market forces cease to exist within the credit card industry once these new laws are in place? Am I supposed to believe that as a consumer all of these banks are going to simultaneously produce a less desirable product and there is nothing I can do about it? Am I supposed to believe that if people such as college students and those with less desirable credit are squeezed out of the credit card market things are going to get worse for consumers such as myself with good credit. That doesn't even make sense. If anything the competition to gain and retain customers with good credit should increase resulting in even better credit card offers. Wouldn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10g_DBA Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Money is the root of all evil. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. -1 Timothy 6:10 This is a often misquoted and misunderstood verse. Money is amoral, meaning that it is neither good nor evil. It can be used for many purposes, some good, others bad. greed is. Correct. The LOVE of money - A.K.A Greed My $0.02 on this bill: I happen to hate any legislation that furthers the Left's radical Marxist agenda. But I kind of like this bill. In general, I feel that credit card companies could use a little restraint. But that's not the good part. When Mr. Obama signs this bill, freedom-loving Americans will be allowed to carry concealed firearms in national parks. Barack has been terrific for the 2nd Amendment so far. Since the election, guns are flying off the shelves, no one can keep ammo in stock, and now he about to restore our right to carry handguns as a means of self defense against predators(both four-legged and two-legged). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Correct. The LOVE of money - A.K.A Greed whoa. i thought you were dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Itals Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I just received a "Change of Terms" letter from Capital One the other day. They're raising my current APR of 12.9% to 22.9%, but it doesn't take effect until Jan. 1, 2011. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10g_DBA Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 whoa. i thought you were dead. exiled Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I just received a "Change of Terms" letter from Capital One the other day. They're raising my current APR of 12.9% to 22.9%, but it doesn't take effect until Jan. 1, 2011. are they trying to skirt the changes obama is proposing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 if your president listens. Soooo you dont consider yourself an American anymore? Or are you just that sour that your party isnt in control anymore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 If everyone here that has excellent credit and is moaning about these changes, then why dont you just pay CASH for things? Didnt we cover this already? If someone is complaining about how they got "free" loans for 30 days with cashback and bonus, but paid off their bills every month, are you complaining that your "corporate welfare" might END? Arent those benfits possible because of people trapped in credit card debt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 If everyone here that has excellent credit and is moaning about these changes, then why dont you just pay CASH for things? Didnt we cover this already? If someone is complaining about how they got "free" loans for 30 days with cashback and bonus, but paid off their bills every month, are you complaining that your "corporate welfare" might END? Arent those benfits possible because of people trapped in credit card debt? And if everyone who is the low-risk, lower-margin customer for the CC companies quits, where does that leave them? And the loans aren't free. Anyone who isn't a moran knows that we pay the extra 3-5% in the form of higher prices for the convenience of using the cards. Perhaps che-boy, you need a little more edumacation into the effects of supply and demand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted May 22, 2009 Author Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) And if everyone who is the low-risk, lower-margin customer for the CC companies quits, where does that leave them? And the loans aren't free. Anyone who isn't a moran knows that we pay the extra 3-5% in the form of higher prices for the convenience of using the cards. Perhaps che-boy, you need a little more edumacation into the effects of supply and demand. wait, wallace thinks that stores just eat that 2%(soon to be 7%) they have to fork over to cc companies???? Edited May 22, 2009 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I'm just tired of all the scare tactics and this is just the latest one. Here are some other recent ones. Idea: limit the pay of CEOs for companies that receive federal bailout money so they can stop paying themselves ridiculous amounts of money while the company is fighting to survive. Scare tactic: you can't do that or these CEOs will not have the money to spend that keeps the economy of places like NY city alive. Restaurants and businesses will be forced to close. People will lose their jobs. Idea: Put laws in place so that companies stop using off-shore tax havens to avoid paying millions in federal taxes Scare tactic: you can't do that or these companies will just fold up their tents and move their entire operations out of the country. People will lose their jobs. The cities where these companies are located will turn into ghost towns. Idea: Put laws in place to require automobile manufacturers to produce vehicles that are more fuel efficient thus making our country less dependent on foreign oil and at the same time helping the environment. Scare tactic: you can't do that or car companies will be forced to make smaller and lighter vehicles meaning that they will be less safe. There will be more deaths each year related to auto accidents. There will be blood in the streets I tell you! You can basically come up with a scare tactic for any idea that is thrown out there and this latest one regarding the credit card law is just another. Higher interest rates, annual fees, elimination of perks such Cash Back Bonuses, Sky Miles, etc. In addition to the scare tactic this issue also incorporates the now too familiar "we vs. they" approach for pitting us against each other. "We" lose our credit card perks because "they" can't pay their bills. The really ironic part is that many of the opponents of this bill are the same people who constantly tout the market forces of competition as the greatest underlying force of our economy. Well do these market forces cease to exist within the credit card industry once these new laws are in place? Am I supposed to believe that as a consumer all of these banks are going to simultaneously produce a less desirable product and there is nothing I can do about it? Am I supposed to believe that if people such as college students and those with less desirable credit are squeezed out of the credit card market things are going to get worse for consumers such as myself with good credit. That doesn't even make sense. If anything the competition to gain and retain customers with good credit should increase resulting in even better credit card offers. Wouldn't it? Here's a scare tactic: If you keep ripping off consumers, they aren't going to buy stuff and the economy will tank, causing businesses to go under and people to lose their jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted May 22, 2009 Author Share Posted May 22, 2009 Here's a scare tactic: If you keep ripping off consumers, they aren't going to buy stuff and the economy will tank, causing businesses to go under and people to lose their jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) Here's a scare tactic: If you keep ripping off consumers, they aren't going to buy stuff and the economy will tank, causing businesses to go under and people to lose their jobs. Nahh, you guys say the average consumer isn't smart enough to do that? That's why daddy statist fedgov must protect the slows, according to Swammi. ETA: According to Swammi and Pope Edited May 22, 2009 by westvirginia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I know! Ridiculous! The economy could never get in trouble because banks exercise policies that end up with customers that they never should have given money to in default! HAHAHAH! Too smart for that! It could never ever ever (I hope you're picking up the irony here) ever happen!!1 HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!11!!!!! LARFF!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I know! Ridiculous! The economy could never get in trouble because banks exercise policies that end up with customers that they never should have given money to in default! HAHAHAH! Too smart for that! Of course the economy could get in trouble if the government persuaded to banks to make risky loans, piled on a bunch of regulations that the people thought were protecting them, all the while the politicians that were supposed to be in charge of oversight were having their campaign coffers filled by the very companies they were to be providing oversight for. Nope, never happen.! Fixed for accuracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) Nahh, you guys say the average consumer isn't smart enough to do that? That's why daddy statist fedgov must protect the slows, according to Swammi. ETA: According to Swammi and Pope nice try, but look at most of my posts and you'll see my bigger argument is that credit companies shouldn't be an industry that is given carte blanche to bend the American public over and arbitrarily raise rates. The ironic thing is, you clowns are arguing that you are pissed that you now may be charged an annual fee. Which, if you read your agreement, the credit card company is entitled to do! Edited May 22, 2009 by i_am_the_swammi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 I know! Ridiculous! The economy could never get in trouble because banks exercise policies that end up with customers that they never should have given money to in default! HAHAHAH! Too smart for that! Of course the economy could get in trouble if the government persuaded to banks to make risky loans, piled on a bunch of regulations that the people thought were protecting them, all the while the politicians that were supposed to be in charge of oversight were having their campaign coffers filled by the very companies they were to be providing oversight for. Nope, never happen.! Fixed for accuracy. Thank goodness the adults were in charge to correct all those poor decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Idea: Put laws in place so that companies stop using off-shore tax havens to avoid paying millions in federal taxes Scare tactic: you can't do that or these companies will just fold up their tents and move their entire operations out of the country. People will lose their jobs. The cities where these companies are located will turn into ghost towns. these aren't tax "havens" and they don't constitute tax "loopholes". global companies that are based in the U.S. can defer taxes from immediately being paid in foreign countries. in many countries, if you reinvest your earnings in that country, you then do not have to pay that U.S. tax at all. eventually the taxes are paid if the earnings come home. obama wants to change the policy so that all business are taxed immediately, in all cases. this will have a big negative impact on those global companies based in the U.S. and puts these companies at a serious disadvantage when competing against foreign based competition. we already have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, this just puts another big burden on our corporations. this will cause jobs to be lost and it will cause companies to move their base of operations overseas. why do you think so many of our U.S. corporations base their operations in delaware? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 why do you think so many of our U.S. corporations base their operations in delaware? Because Delaware is a lovely place to live???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Because Delaware is a lovely place to live???? nope. well, it may be, but that's not the reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 nice try, but look at most of my posts and you'll see my bigger argument is that credit companies shouldn't be an industry that is given carte blanche to bend the American public over and arbitrarily raise rates. The ironic thing is, you clowns are arguing that you are pissed that you now may be charged an annual fee. Which, if you read your agreement, the credit card company is entitled to do! Pissed because fedgov intervention will force the fee on us. That's what upsets this applecart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.