Pechorin: RemyDuron: Yeah, no point in trying to regulate anything, they'll just get around it. And why are we still arresting people for murder? Didn't OJ show they just get away with it? It's a waste of taxpayer money, I say.

You're burning the industrial sized straw man today.

True, probably not the right thread for that argument, but it's a sentiment that pops up a lot in discussions of government regulation.

This thread is still asinine, people blaming congress because the credit card companies are acting like assholes.

Thongress.

coco ebert: godofusa.com: Great job, Congress!

I was forced into applying for my credit line!

I was forced to buy that car!

I was forced to buy that plasma tv!

I was forced to buy that iphone and data plan!

I was forced to eat at restaurants 3 nights a week instead of cooking for my family!

No, but as I found out, NOT having a credit card means you can't buy a car or a house. As I later found out, not USING a credit card once you have it also means no car or house. Being responsible with your money does not necessarily mean you are rewarded by your bank. The whole consumer economy revolves around credit and people being deep in it.

but thats not the whole problem. they sell you a credit card with a life rate of say 8%. you run up 2000 bucks worth of stuff. then they send you a "we're changing the agreement" notice after you've had the card "now if you are late on any other card, or carry a balance, we are going to change it to 19.99 and if you are late on anything, not even this card, we are going to jack you to 35%.

thats dirty, and dont give me the just dont use credit crap, changing the game after it started is not ethical.

Yea, I pay off my credit cards (3 of them) every month. The I read that doing so is bad for my credit. One of the cards I keep empty unless it's an emergency of some kind. Then I read keeping a 0 balance is bad for my credit. Then I got news that my Master Card interest rate was going up to over 20%. I went to cancel the card, but read that doing so would be bad for my credit. It seems that being responsible with credit cards can be bad for your credit. Huh?

The Credit "score" system is asinine.

Who is John Galt?

I'm sorry but 29% is insane. Most people get these 3-9% offers, then get credit on it, for them to suddenly get jacked up to 29% is INSANE. Seriously.and OMG they are losing 10% so they need 29% to survive? Uhmmmm....no.

There is making a profit, and there is screwing the public over by having the right to change the deal in unexpected ways. Who really expects their payment to triple when they are paying on time as agreed?

Heck-who honestly expects it to triple if you are a day late?

Even loan sharks are more honest. if you fail to pay the consequences are X. and X doesn't change suddenly if you are making your payments on time as agreed.

If the loan shark loans you 1,000, and you agree to make 8 weekly payments of $200, 6 weeks later when you are making your payment on time he doesn't tack on an extra payment, and break your left leg. You just make 2 more payments and he thanks you for your business.

coco ebert: No, but as I found out, NOT having a credit card means you can't buy a car or a house. As I later found out, not USING a credit card once you have it also means no car or house. Being responsible with your money does not necessarily mean you are rewarded by your bank. The whole consumer economy revolves around credit and people being deep in it.

ITS A

Bought my first house without ever having a credit card. Didn't know what my credit score was then and I still don't. Didn't affect me then and it doesn't affect me now.

coco ebert: godofusa.com: Great job, Congress!

I was forced into applying for my credit line!

I was forced to buy that car!

I was forced to buy that plasma tv!

I was forced to buy that iphone and data plan!

I was forced to eat at restaurants 3 nights a week instead of cooking for my family!

No, but as I found out, NOT having a credit card means you can't buy a car or a house. As I later found out, not USING a credit card once you have it also means no car or house. Being responsible with your money does not necessarily mean you are rewarded by your bank. The whole consumer economy revolves around credit and people being deep in it.

Bullshiat. That's why you rent and SAVE. SAVE SAVE SAVE!

Then you can put down $100,000 on a $125,000 house (or hell, the house will be 100k with the way the real estate will continue to plummit) and you are rewarded for your savings.

Easy access to credit is what caused this problem, especially for people who had no way of paying loans back. Thanks, Fwank!

thats dirty, and dont give me the just dont use credit crap, changing the game after it started is not ethical.

Ethics ain't got nothing to do with it.
Legality is all that matters now.

hinten: Who is John Galt?

A farking made up character that lives in a farking fantasy world created by a crazy biatch who did not understand the difference between a market system and a power structure.

hinten: Who is John Galt?
A character in a novel that's about as poorly crafted as the half assed philosophy it excretes. Pseudo-intellectuals love to quote it.

Tell your friends, tell your dad, tell your mom.

sven_kirk: Ethics ain't got nothing to do with it.
Legality is all that matters now.

At least according to the Christian Conservatives

DaSwankOne: hinten: Who is John Galt?

A farking made up character that lives in a farking fantasy world created by a crazy biatch who did not understand the difference between a market system and a power structure.

This is also correct.

miltonbabbitt: Yea, I pay off my credit cards (3 of them) every month. The I read that doing so is bad for my credit. One of the cards I keep empty unless it's an emergency of some kind. Then I read keeping a 0 balance is bad for my credit. Then I got news that my Master Card interest rate was going up to over 20%. I went to cancel the card, but read that doing so would be bad for my credit. It seems that being responsible with credit cards can be bad for your credit. Huh?

The Credit "score" system is asinine.

Sorry - but that is incorrect. It is true that there are many credit card companies that would label you as a "deadbeat" (one who pays off their card and does not have to pay any interest) but it does not cause your credit score to drop. I have a score of 822 and I pay off my cards on a monthly basis - balances of $5-$10K each month. I use the cards as part of my business, but, they are all under my name.

Your statement about closing a card is partially true, but only in the short term. The credit score is calculated by the total amount of credit you have, less the amount that you owe, add in over due balances, bankruptcies, plus some stuff they pull out of their a$$ and that is the credit score.

Greywar: I'm sorry but 29% is insane. Most people get these 3-9% offers, then get credit on it, for them to suddenly get jacked up to 29% is INSANE. Seriously.and OMG they are losing 10% so they need 29% to survive? Uhmmmm....no.

There is making a profit, and there is screwing the public over by having the right to change the deal in unexpected ways. Who really expects their payment to triple when they are paying on time as agreed?

Heck-who honestly expects it to triple if you are a day late?

Even loan sharks are more honest. if you fail to pay the consequences are X. and X doesn't change suddenly if you are making your payments on time as agreed.

If the loan shark loans you 1,000, and you agree to make 8 weekly payments of $200, 6 weeks later when you are making your payment on time he doesn't tack on an extra payment, and break your left leg. You just make 2 more payments and he thanks you for your business.

I sure hope so; they are after all the ones who will likely benefit most from this legislation.

Lord_Baull: My 780 credit score and I are concerned.

Did you know your credit score will go down if you simply purchase things at the same store as the deadbeats, even if you pay everthing on time.

I would suggest Americans boycott these banks, but most Americans would rather kill their own mothers than drop a line of credit.

jdetweiler:

thats dirty, and dont give me the just dont use credit crap, changing the game after it started is not ethical.

One might argue that it was all written into the agreement before you signed it.

That doesn't mean it isn't entirely retarded or irresponsible.

People should be responsible and lenders ethical.

Right now all these crazy fees and rate hikes are driving people further into debt and it truly punishes those ethical customers who want to be honorable and try to keep paying their bills despite rate hikes and late fees.

It's funny because logically wouldn't most of the ridiculous fees lenders collect come from people who DO want to pay off their debts...? So in the end the consumer is punished for pretty much just trying to do the right thing when no leeway is expected on the lenders end...

Not to mention some agreements allow them to jack up a person's rates even when they've always made payments on time...

I dunno... I just feel like... Don't dangle the carrot on the stick and then blame the donkey for chasing it... Everyone knows that people want new shiny things... people who like to make money are EXCEPTIONALLY well aware of this.

The lenders pretend to be charitable but they know EXACTLY what they are doing and who they are lending money to.

and

SHOULDN'T a FINANCIAL INSTITUTION know MORE about handling MONEY than nearly everyone else? You'd think they'd be more sensible regarding who they lend their money to.

I don't feel sorry for the lenders at all and I think its idiotic that people simply place all the blame upon the people who accept the loans.

They know exactly what they are doing by "making credit so widely available" and then they cry about how they've been victimized when really all they want to do is rape every paying customer with rate hikes and fees.

NO SYMPATHY FOR THE LENDERS imo.

godofusa.com: rohar: godofusa.com: rohar: archevilangel: No, I don't think the government should regulate credit cards

Ok, I'll bite, why?

That kind of information is private. If the bank thinks you should have a loan (based on your credit history) then fine, but this is another way of the government interfering.

You simply restated what the previous farker said, government shouldn't... I'll ask again, why shouldn't the government regulate the credit card industry.

/did I miss one of this week's talking points?

Because my money (or spending habits) are not the business of the government. There is also no Constitutional authority for this (especially going around appointing 18 "czars").


Um, we're not talking about your money, it's the cc companies' money. People are just borrowing it. Nice try though.

Hmm, it's almost as if the credit card companies are engaging in commerce. Some might say that commerce is interstate. I'm pretty sure I read something about that somewhere. I wonder where that could be...

You do know that if the bank raises your rate, they are required to notify you in writing and you can cancel your card and keep the rate?

Of course you don't have a credit card anymore but if your credit score is good, you can find a lower interest rate.

I canceled my Capital One card when they jacked me up to 29%, DESPITE having a 700+ credit score, NEVER missing a payment, and NOT carrying a balance for most of the card's life....until just before I cancelled it.

Still, I did the math and if I paid the minimum at 29% I'd be paying for another 2 years and an extra $3000 on the $1200 balance that I had. That's enough to make your butt hurt

portscanner:
Sorry - but that is incorrect. It is true that there are many credit card companies that would label you as a "deadbeat" (one who pays off their card and does not have to pay any interest) but it does not cause your credit score to drop. I have a score of 822 and I pay off my cards on a monthly basis - balances of $5-$10K each month. I use the cards as part of my business, but, they are all under my name.

Your statement about closing a card is partially true, but only in the short term. The credit score is calculated by the total amount of credit you have, less the amount that you owe, add in over due balances, bankruptcies, plus some stuff they pull out of their a$$ and that is the credit score.

Thanks for the tip. I didn't mean to imply I believed everything I read about credit scores, just that it was all so complex and confusing it seemed like a useless system. Regardless, I still sleep better knowing I'm balance-free from month to month so I continue to pay as I go.

John Galt

The point is that it is naive to think that Congress can really do something effective to shape a multi-billion dollar business in a way that will result in actually cost savings to the consumer.

I am not fatalistic about regulation of this industry but not for the purpose of 'saving money'. More regulation for disclosure of actual cost structure per annum for consumers, clear disclosure of fees, etc. Ultimately, an educated consumer will make the right decision with the right consequences to the comapanies that are abusive. This has and always will work better than trying to regulate pricing itself.

No other meaning was implied but thanks for proofing your own point about pseudo intellectuals.

fifthhorseman: Anyone got a good "No Duh" graphic for this?




nope

miltonbabbitt: portscanner:
Sorry - but that is incorrect. It is true that there are many credit card companies that would label you as a "deadbeat" (one who pays off their card and does not have to pay any interest) but it does not cause your credit score to drop. I have a score of 822 and I pay off my cards on a monthly basis - balances of $5-$10K each month. I use the cards as part of my business, but, they are all under my name.

Your statement about closing a card is partially true, but only in the short term. The credit score is calculated by the total amount of credit you have, less the amount that you owe, add in over due balances, bankruptcies, plus some stuff they pull out of their a$$ and that is the credit score.

Thanks for the tip. I didn't mean to imply I believed everything I read about credit scores, just that it was all so complex and confusing it seemed like a useless system. Regardless, I still sleep better knowing I'm balance-free from month to month so I continue to pay as I go.

"...complex and confusing..." the purpose is to make it that way as much as possible so the credit reporting companies can make as much money as possible having you chasing a goal that you have NO idea how to obtain.

But I agree with you about sleeping well. I sleep well also.

portscanner: Your statement about closing a card is partially true, but only in the short term. The credit score is calculated by the total amount of credit you have, less the amount that you owe, add in over due balances, bankruptcies, plus some stuff they pull out of their a$$ and that is the credit score.

A big part of that is also the length of your credit history. If Mr X has a only three credit cards, one for 10 years (w/$5K credit line @28%), another for 5 (with a $10K credit line @14%) and the other for 2 (w/$5,000 @17%, then cancels his 10 year credit card, suddenly he loses 25% of his ability to borrow plus his longest credit history item. This can drop Mr X's score by a very large percent. "For a short while" is, unfortinately, relative.

Unfortunately the entire system is designed to punish liabilities and non-producers. If you, as an investment, produce no return (meaning you're responsible and pay everything cash) then you are punished by the system. Problem is that even if you ARE a good investment, one faulty move (whether or not it's your fault is inconsequential to the equation) and now you're a liability and deserve to be punished by the system.

The system is VERY good for investors, VERY precarious for investments.

DaSwankOne: A farking made up character that lives in a farking fantasy world created by a crazy biatch who did not understand the difference between a market system and a power structure.

Sounds like TRW to me.

godofusa.com: Because my money (or spending habits) are not the business of the government. There is also no Constitutional authority for this (especially going around appointing 18 "czars").

Are you actually under the impression that passing legislation to regulate the credit card industry means that the government suddenly has access to all your monthly statements?

brainiac-dumdum: ...but most Americans would rather kill their own mothers than drop a line of credit.



that is because their moms are all WHORES!!!!

Thrag: godofusa.com: Because my money (or spending habits) are not the business of the government. There is also no Constitutional authority for this (especially going around appointing 18 "czars").

Are you actually under the impression that passing legislation to regulate the credit card industry means that the government suddenly has access to all your monthly statements?

No. I'm saying they are overstepping their boundaries. Again.

Thrag: godofusa.com: Because my money (or spending habits) are not the business of the government. There is also no Constitutional authority for this (especially going around appointing 18 "czars").

Are you actually under the impression that passing legislation to regulate the credit card industry means that the government suddenly has access to all your monthly statements?

Given how badly our government understands fiscal systems of any sort (including our own) I doubt they'd know what the hell they were looking at.

archevilangel: I think the law is inadvertently good. No, I don't think the government should regulate credit cards, BUT by doing so it'll have the auxiliary effect of limiting how much credit is issued(by limiting how attractive giving credit is). That unintended effect will actually be a positive.

Americans have taken on too much debt, a large portion of which is to buy depreciating consumer goods, and now we will be protected from ourselves.

Kinda what I was thinking. In reality card companies are being extremely stupid. Anything that makes Americans think before charging is going to hurt them in the long run.

1derful: A character in a novel that's about as poorly crafted as the half assed philosophy it excretes. Pseudo-intellectuals love to quote it.

Too true. Considering Marx and Rand are economic philosophers, whose ideas have f*ck-all in common in the real world, they are both failure.

hinten:

More regulation for disclosure of actual cost structure per annum for consumers, clear disclosure of fees, etc. Ultimately, an educated consumer will make the right decision with the right consequences to the comapanies that are abusive. This has and always will work better than trying to regulate pricing itself.



QFT

This would be a good way to do it.

crappie: Lord_Baull: My 780 credit score and I are concerned.

Did you know your credit score will go down if you simply purchase things at the same store as the deadbeats, even if you pay everthing on time.

You credit score? I am pretty sure that is incorrect.

godofusa.com: No. I'm saying they are overstepping their boundaries. Again.

But you keep saying things like "Because my money (or spending habits) are not the business of the government."

What does that have to do with the topic of regulation limiting rate increases? How is this kind of regulation overstepping the bounds of government? Does the government not have the constitutional role of regulating interstate commerce?

If you view this regulation of rate increases as unconstitutional, are you similarly against usury laws? Is any regulation of financial industries acceptable?

godofusa.com: Then you can put down $100,000 on a $125,000 house (or hell, the house will be 100k with the way the real estate will continue to plummit) and you are rewarded for your savings.

Once you have a house, you really don't need credit cards, car payments or student loans to get a good rating. And you can still get FHA financing with a 640 score. That's not terribly difficult to get, but I don't know if you can actually get a score that high if you have no credit. But that's really a non-issue if you have parents that can lend you their score. Of course, a lot of Greatest Generation farmers who retired 10 - 20 years ago were screwed when they left a home and business that never generated a credit trail and tried to buy a house in the city.

So really, the previous credit requirement to get a house only really impacts poor families, orphans, and farmers.

And who cares about those assholes?

Little known fact:

Congress is populated by Special Ed dropouts!!

///The more you know!!

hinten: John Galt

The point is that it is naive to think that Congress can really do something effective to shape a multi-billion dollar business in a way that will result in actually cost savings to the consumer.

I am not fatalistic about regulation of this industry but not for the purpose of 'saving money'. More regulation for disclosure of actual cost structure per annum for consumers, clear disclosure of fees, etc. Ultimately, an educated consumer will make the right decision with the right consequences to the comapanies that are abusive. This has and always will work better than trying to regulate pricing itself.

No other meaning was implied but thanks for proofing your own point about pseudo intellectuals.

Yep you meant no other meaning; well other than the one about regulation of industry and educated consumers and consequences and nine other points you squeezed out of that turd of a book. I think his point about pseudo intellectuals was spot on.

jst3p: crappie: Lord_Baull: My 780 credit score and I are concerned.

Did you know your credit score will go down if you simply purchase things at the same store as the deadbeats, even if you pay everthing on time.

You credit score? I am pretty sure that is incorrect.

I have read some info on that. Need to find the source. I guess if you shop in a store where deadbeats shop, you must also be a deadbeat (birds of a feather, etc)

godofusa.com: Thrag: godofusa.com: Because my money (or spending habits) are not the business of the government. There is also no Constitutional authority for this (especially going around appointing 18 "czars").

Are you actually under the impression that passing legislation to regulate the credit card industry means that the government suddenly has access to all your monthly statements?

No. I'm saying they are overstepping their boundaries. Again.


Which boundary? Their powers are explicit and enumerated.

portscanner: I have read some info on that. Need to find the source. I guess if you shop in a store where deadbeats shop, you must also be a deadbeat (birds of a feather, etc)

I'd guess it's not shopping exactly, but where you get financing from.

For instance, $2000 from a Honda Dealership would impact your credit score less than $2000 from a Rent-a-Center.

portscanner: jst3p: crappie: Lord_Baull: My 780 credit score and I are concerned.

Did you know your credit score will go down if you simply purchase things at the same store as the deadbeats, even if you pay everthing on time.

You credit score? I am pretty sure that is incorrect.

I have read some info on that. Need to find the source. I guess if you shop in a store where deadbeats shop, you must also be a deadbeat (birds of a feather, etc)

I am pretty sure you read a story where the credit card company raised rates based on where purchases were made. Big difference.

yeah, my rates went from 0 to 5.9 up to 30 percent to "both your testes and your shriveled dink".

fosborb: portscanner: I have read some info on that. Need to find the source. I guess if you shop in a store where deadbeats shop, you must also be a deadbeat (birds of a feather, etc)

I'd guess it's not shopping exactly, but where you get financing from.

For instance, $2000 from a Honda Dealership would impact your credit score less than $2000 from a Rent-a-Center.

That has to do with the type of line of credit: Instalment loan vs. "consumer finance".

DaSwankOne:
Yep you meant no other meaning; well other than the one about regulation of industry and educated consumers and consequences and nine other points you squeezed out of that turd of a book. I think his point about pseudo intellectuals was spot on.

How are you addressing anything I just wrote on topic besides repeating that you read a certain book?

People who don't pay their balances off every month have no one to blame but themselves for their poor state of financial affairs. Sorry, but financial advisors have been trying to tell you idiots to pay that shiat off for years and it's STILL always somebody else's fault you get screwed. Mmm hmmmmm.

hinten: How are you addressing anything I just wrote on topic besides repeating that you read a certain book?

Look I am used to objectivist being total idiots, but you are the one that brought up John Galt. The points you brought up are not based in reality. Deregulation has been a total failure. Any one that is not stupid enough to believe in objectivism understands this.

Thrag: godofusa.com: Because my money (or spending habits) are not the business of the government. There is also no Constitutional authority for this (especially going around appointing 18 "czars").

Are you actually under the impression that passing legislation to regulate the credit card industry means that the government suddenly has access to all your monthly statements?

Wasn't/isn't credit card monitoring a key part of the War on Terror?

portscanner: jst3p: crappie: Lord_Baull: My 780 credit score and I are concerned.

Did you know your credit score will go down if you simply purchase things at the same store as the deadbeats, even if you pay everthing on time.

You credit score? I am pretty sure that is incorrect.

I have read some info on that. Need to find the source. I guess if you shop in a store where deadbeats shop, you must also be a deadbeat (birds of a feather, etc)

I'm tired / so copy and paste


http://www.thesunsfinancialdiary.com/personal-finance/shop-hurt-credit-score-cr e dit-limits/

Hell here's the article/ it was also on Good Morning America a while back


Kevin Johnson, who, at 29 years old, is the CEO of a PR firm in Atlanta and has an excellent FICO credit score of 764, has recently got the credit limit on his AMEX Blue Credit Card slashed by $7,000 even though he paid his balance in full every month and never late. The reason, according to the letter sent to Kevin from AMEX,

Other customers who have used their card at establishments where you recently shopped have a poor repayment history with American Express.

After examining his past charges on the card, it seems that the only place where he shopped could raise the red flag is, well, Wal-Mart, even though American Express refused to tell Kevin exactly which establishments "have a poor repayment history with American Express."

What AMEX did was using the so-call behavioral analysis to examine card member's shopping patterns then determine the credit worthiness based on the result, in a way to try to keep default rate down.

Is there anything wrong with what AMEX did? Yes, I think there is, but not because AMEX profiled its card members (yes, people should get different treatment based on their credit history), rather they punished good people for the fault that is not theirs. And, according the the news report, the use of behavioral analysis by issuers are increasing.

Be careful where you shop now!