New credit card bill

[Revmitchell]

Credit cards were not around when the Constitution was written. If the Fed did not regulate the banking industry then who would? The shotgun? If the Fed did not reglulate the banking industry wouldn't that be kind of like letting the fox guard the hen house? The way the banking industry has perforemd lately I think banks should be abolished. After all how much do they work to make money off of the Fed's money? When they fail who bails them out? If I fail in business who bails me out?

What is not specifically designated to the fed by the constitution is left to the States as it should be. If we need to amend the Constitution then at least it becomes legitimate.But we do not need to ignore it out of convenience and expediency like Obama stated he wants to do.

 

[Salty]

There are so many problems with this bill it's not even funny: ...
- The under 21 co-signer requirement is going to hamstring students and families. Now, a parent has to be responsible for a 20 yr old student's credit worthiness, and that student's paying ability going forward could harm a parent's credit score simply because of a new govt restriction. It makes no sense. An 18 year old can choose who the president is but can't choose a credit card?
...

First, I get sick and tired of the 18 yo can..., (think drinking and the draft)) but that same 18 yo is not allowed to RUN for President!
Second, if I had a child in that situation, I would co-sign - but at a limit of $100. If he wanted a higher limit, than he would be required to post a bond with me, before I would allow the limit to be raised.

As I said before, I am normally against excessive govt control, but this one I am in favor of.

At a local IF Bap church, their credit card account interest rate went up excessively. The church contacted the local Congressman. He helped in passage of the Maloney-Maffei amendment. Can you believe a Democrat helping a Fundamental Baptist. Of course what is more ironical is a IFB accepting help from a Democrat. :tongue3: BTW, this was a huge local story.

Salty

 

[carpro]

What is not specifically designated to the fed by the constitution is left to the States as it should be. If we need to amend the Constitution then at least it becomes legitimate.But we do not need to ignore it out of convenience and expediency like Obama stated he wants to do.

Haven't you heard , Mitch?

The 10TH Amendment has existed for years. Abortion is a prime example.

One of the ironies of this piece of legislation is that a 14 year old girl can get an abortion without parental consent, but a 20 year old can't get a credit card.

The liberal mind is unfathomable. Possibly because it's so shallow.

 

[gb93433]

The 10TH Amendment has existed for years. Abortion is a prime example.

One of the ironies of this piece of legislation is that a 14 year old girl can get an abortion without parental consent, but a 20 year old can't get a credit card.

In some states a minor cannot be given an aspirin but can get an abortion. Make sense?

 

[TomVols]

When I use my debit card, it shows a deduction of only $1 until the transaction clears. I've never experienced what you are saying.

It is not prevalent but it is not uncommon. Hotels have been huge perps of this, but with rising gas prices, gas stations are now under the microscope. Some of it goes back to who services the card, but it is more under the purview of the individual business debiting the card.

Credit cards were not around when the Constitution was written. If the Fed did not regulate the banking industry then who would?

The first part is a non-sequitur. Second part: who should? The market. People. That's the way the govt of this country was founded. It worked for an awful long time. I think it still could.

The way the banking industry has perforemd lately I think banks should be abolished

Talk about an overreaction with unintended consequences. A fraction of banks/financial institutions are guilty of the excesses that are making headlines. And if you abolish deposit institutions, then who lends money to buy homes, cars, etc? Bye bye to checks, so we go to an all cash system. Good luck with trying to keep pace with inflation and future dollar values. How are you going to get paid by your employer? I pray you're joking. Now, if you want to argue against bail outs, fine with me. I'll agree with you.

First, I get sick and tired of the 18 yo can..., (think drinking and the draft)) but that same 18 yo is not allowed to RUN for President!

Apples and oranges. 18 year olds can't run for congress due to Constitutional mandate. However, we now have laws that have no genesis in our Constitution that categorize 18/21 year olds with no consistency and only based on the lobbyists efforts.

Second, if I had a child in that situation, I would co-sign - but at a limit of $100.

Most CC cos wouldn't go that low. The $100 purchasing power of that card would be nil. You couldn't book a hotel room or a rental car. Plus, there's the argument that co-signing for another's debts is unBiblical. More to the point, are 18 year olds adults or not? If so, they stand on their own merits (key word). If not, then that's another matter.

If he wanted a higher limit, than he would be required to post a bond with me, before I would allow the limit to be raised.

Wow.

As I said before, I am normally against excessive govt control, but this one I am in favor of.

Give the govt control in this kind of area and what's to keep Big Brother from sticking his nose in anywhere he chooses?

At a local IF Bap church, their credit card account interest rate went up excessively.

Don't get me started on churches and credit cards :BangHead:

 

[Salty]

The $100 purchasing power of that card would be nil.
Give the govt control in this kind of area and what's to keep Big Brother from sticking his nose in anywhere he chooses?

The purpose of a low limit is to prevent excessive spending. It would basically be for emergencies, and semi-emergencies.

Also, this would be a time to learn self-discipline of money control.
I chose the amount of $100, because it would be sufficient for minor purchases, yet that is not an excessive amount in todays financial society.

As far as big brother; the job of the government is to protect me from others, not from myself.

I would like to know why a card company needs to charge me $29 for a late fee!.

Suppose I owe a total of $720, and I am late by one day, that $29 = an APR of 50% !

Also, why should they charge me for a payment made over the phone especially, if a live operator is not utilized?

Salty

ps, when this thread closes, please, somone start a :wavey:similar one!

 

[StefanM]

The purpose of a low limit is to prevent excessive spending. It would basically be for emergencies, and semi-emergencies.

Also, this would be a time to learn self-discipline of money control.
I chose the amount of $100, because it would be sufficient for minor purchases, yet that is not an excessive amount in todays financial society.

I don't know about you, but if something is under $100, it's not much of an emergency.

I have three credit cards, none of which I carry balances on (I have carried small balances in the past). I keep them primarily for the credit history and the benefit of knowing that in an emergency, I would have some means of taking on unexpected expenses.

In the interest of building credit history, a secured card with a cosigner might be the better option. It prevents unsecured liabilities for the cosigner.

 

[Martin Luther]

Congress has recently passed a comprehensive credit card reform bill. The President is expected to sign it soon.

So are the changes good, bad, indifferent?

The goal of credit cards was to provide external lift to a dying economy, with that phase over the impetus now is to remove buying power from the general public, that is where this bill comes in.

This market slump locks the majority of people into their positions. The banks have begun to purchase worthless CDO's at inflated prices with the Federal government backing 85%!!! of the purchase price. Most of the 15% the banks are using was TARP money to begin with. Financials have lead this latest market rally which is about out of gas and in need of more public money. We are far from the bottom, the collapse has just begun.

 

[TomVols]

The banks have begun to purchase worthless CDO's at inflated prices with the Federal government backing 85%!!! of the purchase price. Most of the 15% the banks are using was TARP money to begin with.

What banks are doing that????? Banks are scared to death of CDOs right now since their Tier 1 ratios are under more enormous scrutiny than usual. Most banks purged themselves of these so fast they're causing the doppler effect. There might be a bank holding or two out there that might have a percent or two of these, but those are not real banks, and are not real prevalent.

To some extent financials have helped spur this latest rally. But why? One, the public has figured out that the sky is not falling. The data shows this is not the worst recession in history, as was prophesied. While GDP continues to be dismal, CCI and CS (for whatever these are worth) show modestly higher readings than expected. Two, financials are beating estimates. While that's a two-eded sword (were the estimates artificially low?), it has still given investors something to hang their hat on. The ancillary data look good as well. Many banks are increasing their lending, albeit on stricter terms. It is a prototypical correction. There will be extremes, followed by a settling.

I don't know that I agree that the market has yet to bottom. There may be more bad news that could cause the market to go low, but I don't know if the market can bear drastically lower prices of certaain equities, bonds, and commodities just as the market couldn't bear too high a price for these. I'm by no means bearish yet, but I keep hearing about this other shoe that hasn't dropped yet no one is offering any empirical evidence of a shoelace out there.

I don't know about you, but if something is under $100, it's not much of an emergency.

I have three credit cards, none of which I carry balances on (I have carried small balances in the past). I keep them primarily for the credit history and the benefit of knowing that in an emergency, I would have some means of taking on unexpected expenses.

In the interest of building credit history, a secured card with a cosigner might be the better option. It prevents unsecured liabilities for the cosigner.

Well said, especially about the secured card. That's still the best option for someone looking for a low-balance card. And I totally agree about the $100 part. If something costs less than a hundred bucks, it has no business being financed on a credit card.

As far as big brother; the job of the government is to protect me from others, not from myself.

Big Brother thinks differently.

I would like to know why a card company needs to charge me $29 for a late fee!.

Their rationale is simple. Most people aren't late occasionally or once in a while. They're serial deadbeats. Therefore, they have a fee out there to act as a deterrant, much the same way municipalities charge so much for a speeding ticket or for late payments on property taxes.

Also, why should they charge me for a payment made over the phone especially, if a live operator is not utilized?

I don't know. I don't use this so I couldn't tell you. Find a better card. Lord knows the card cos want better customers right now. They're losing their shirt. But from the sound of it, I could probably guess who your card servicer is.

Mind you, I'm no apologist for the cc cos. I'm just an apologist for the free market and for the Constitution, and I'm critical of depending on Big Brother to do what we can do and should be doing ourselves.

 

[Martin Luther]

How the Scam Works: The "Free Market" at Work, Financial Style

[post deleted - off topic]