Worst. Bill. EVAR. And shame on the Democrats who voted for it!

submitter:

personal responsibility to stop lending money to people who can't afford to pay it back

That's the most bizarre usage of "personal responsibility" I've seen this week.

Here's a simpler one: If you lend money to someone you know can't pay it back, is it the government's job to bail you out?

If the credit card companies didn't extend credit to lower-income people, Submitter would be moaning and biatching about how unjust that was.

Liberals will find fault with anything...


By the way, this bill is advocating personal responsibility

Fnord: That's the most bizarre usage of "personal responsibility" I've seen this week.

As Cyberluddite put it...

I'm not sure you understand it. For a lender, responsible lending practices are a personal responsibility--assessing the creditworthiness of potentially borrowers is what lenders are supposed to do. If your reasonably responsible co-worker asked you to do him a favor and lend him $100 for a week, would you do it? Probably, because you can reasonably assume he will pay it back. If some bum on the street asked you, I assume you would say no, because you figure you would never see it again. You would be acting responsibly to protect your own economic interests.

Here, Congress is relieving credit card issuers of their personal responsibility--to protect their own interests, not the interests of others--to only lend money to those whom a responsible lender would have reason to believe will pay it back in a timely manner. They no longer need to take responsibility for their bad decisions, because they'll get their money even if they lend money to those they know can't pay it back according to schedule. Hell, they'll get more money by doing that, because they can tack on that much more interest. This is the textbook definition of avoiding personal responsibility.

tarrant84:

Here, Congress is relieving credit card issuers of their personal responsibility--to protect their own interests,

How is a bill making bankruptcy harder a bill for CC companies?

damitjim:
How is a bill making bankruptcy harder a bill for CC companies?

It's not harder for them. What they're doing is releiving credit card companies of taking any responsibility in the matter.

As in, if I lent a homeless guy $20 and said I want it back next week, it's my fault for lending it to a guy who clearly can't pay it back. So now the credit card companies don't have to take ANY personal responsibility in the matter-- they can just lend to everyone and profit from it.

Disgusting.

I agree that we should all practice "personal responsibility".

Isn't it amazing that "personal responsibility" or financial responsibility NEVER applies to companies that target and lend to the poor at very high interest rates then get upset when things don't work out as they would like?

2005-03-10 08:46:33 PM tarrant84
Worst. Bill. EVAR. And shame on the Democrats who voted for it!

Yeah, that damn Democrat majority gets you every time.

Whats in YOUR Wallet?

So let me get your arguments against this bill straight:

1. Individual who shouldn't get credit get a credit card from evil banks.

2. Individual spends money he/she knows he doesn't have on crap at Wal-Mart.

3. Individual realizes he/she is in over his/her head.

4. Individual should be able to file bankruptcy, have his debts forgiven, and start over fresh in a few years.

Ridiculous! Personal responsibility is all on the user, not the bank.

BTW - This bill doesn't make it harder to file bankrupcty - It just changes the process so if you have some money you have to use it towards your debts.

damitjim: How is a bill making bankruptcy harder a bill for CC companies?

I'll ask again. The bill makes it harder for people to file bankruptcy, so how is this a windfall for CC companies?

Hey here's an idea!


LET'S MAKE THE CEO's AND BOARD MEMBERS "PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE" FOR THEIR ACTIONS!!!

OH SORRY THAT'S JUST INSANE...

tarrant84:

If some bum on the street asked you, I assume you would say no, because you figure you would never see it again. You would be acting responsibly to protect your own economic interests.

You're probably right, but the difference between me lending a bum 100 bucks and a credit card company lending me 100 bucks is that they will have done due diligence on me by reviewing my credit report first and determining whether I'm worth the risk.

EE Kid -

If you made CEO's and Board Members PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE, then no one would ever take the jobs, and the economy would collapse.

They can be held responsible for gross negligence.

karl trotsky:
Ridiculous! Personal responsibility is all on the user, not the bank.

Homless guy: "Can you spare some change?"
Me: "Sure, but I want it back next week, but I want $2 instead of one. You get a whole week with NO INTEREST! NO PAYMENTS!!!"
Homless guy: "Uh, sure! I need food now!"

a week later...

Me: "You got the money?"
Homeless guy: "Um, I can't even afford to eat right now, let alone pay you back."
Me: "POLICE!! POLICE!! SOMEBODY!!! THIS GUY OWES ME MONEY AND NOW IT'S YOUR JOB TO GET IT BACK FROM HIM!!!"

kronicfeld -

The CREDIT CARD HOLDERS operate in full knowledge of their INCOME, and if they charge too much, they run the risk of having to pay it back.

What a concept! You owe someone money, even if it is a corporation, and you have to pay it back if you can afford to!

tarrant84 -

If that person NEEDS a credit card to eat, then we are looking at bigger societal issues as a whole.

If that person just wants a steak instead of Rahmen noodles, then he needs to pay that money back when it is due.

Dumbest.Headline.Ever

Comeon tarrant84, admit you sumbitted this.

karl trotsky: They can be held responsible for gross negligence.

Generally though, they are not.

karl trotsky:

The CREDIT CARD HOLDERS operate in full knowledge of their INCOME, and if they charge too much, they run the risk of having to pay it back.

But then they get cancer. Suddenly the household is immobilized. Mom has to take over and get a job (a lower paying one) to make ends meet, because Dad is sick in bed. The medical bills are piling up. Little Timmy just graduated high school, and now needs to go to college so he can get a job and produce. Suddenly meeting the mortage payment isn't so easy.

But those credit card companies just need every last time!

tarrant84: and now needs to go to college

That's a choice. He doesn't NEED to go to college.

tarrant84 -

such is life. if they are that badly off, then the old manner of bankruptcy will still apply.

tarrant84:

But then they get cancer. Suddenly the household is immobilized. Mom has to take over and get a job (a lower paying one) to make ends meet, because Dad is sick in bed. The medical bills are piling up. Little Timmy just graduated high school, and now needs to go to college so he can get a job and produce. Suddenly meeting the mortage payment isn't so easy.

But those credit card companies just need every last time!

It's not the credit card companies problem that someone gets cancer or that someone "needs" to go to college. shiat happens in life. You can't always blame it on someone else and take their money. Oh god, I forgot you're in law school. It is always someone else fault!

damitjim:
That's a choice. He doesn't NEED to go to college.

Ah yes, so he can work at Wal-Mart for $5.15 an hour with that esteemed high school diploma. Then when he can't pay his bills, because $5.15 is below the living wage, well, that was his choice too! Keep it at $5.15! They chose not to get an education, why, let them choose to be poor and have to use welfare to survive!

Oh wait, poor people are lazy...

kronicfeld

We're not putting the RISK on the borrower's shoulders. We're putting the RESPONSIBILITY on the borrower's shoulders. If you can't afford to pay it back, don't buy it.

kronicfeld: You've done a great job toeing that line today; keep it up.

First off, learn how to spell tow. Secondly, college doesn't guarantee he won't remain poor. Plenty of college grads out there that aren't making money but could have been for the 4 years they spent in school.

Arnold T Pants:

It's not the credit card companies problem that someone gets cancer or that someone "needs" to go to college.

It is partially their fault, or negligent, of them to lend to people who can't expect to pay it back. As with every business transaction, there is an associated risk factor, or it wouldn't be profitable.

The CC companies turned over *HUGE* profits last year. There was no need to reform this law.

kronicfeld:

You're right. We should keep the poor poor and in their proper place. You've done a great job toeing that line today; keep it up.

If you don't have money then you shouldn't do it. Let me guess, you are up to your ass in debt because you don't understand this simple concept. Or how about get a loan to go to college. If you default on the loan though, I see no problem in the creditors coming after you. If it were up to you you wouldn't give them a loan so they couldn't go in the first place, right?

Arnold T Pants:

Ask yourself this:

Why was this bill passed? To assist the American people? Or perhaps to pander to business interests?

kronicfeld: I stand corrected. I guess that's why you're in law school and I'm working for a living, 2 jobs.

tarrant84:

Why was this bill passed? To assist the American people? Or perhaps to pander to business interests?

Because if you borrow money you are obligated to pay it back.

damitjim:

I stand corrected. I guess that's why you're in law school and I'm working for a living, 2 jobs.

And you actually vote for the party who wants longer work days, less paid overtime, and more legal ways for the business world to screw you?

I will never understand some people.

Arnold T Pants:
Because if you borrow money you are obligated to pay it back.

And suddenly this was a crisis? Were the credit companies not turning huge profits from people paying them back? Were they in danger of going under, since people said "Screw them! We're not paying them back!", so a law desperately needed to be passed to keep that from happening?

Or is it because they donated to Bush and the Republican's campaign, so it was time to return the favor?

tarrant84: I will never understand some people.

I vote for the party that doesn't have a trial lawyer running as it's VP or a bunch of lawyers running the party.

damitjim:

I vote for the party that doesn't have a trial lawyer running as it's VP or a bunch of lawyers running the party.

Ah Republicans. First to sue, first to hate lawyers.

You know why businesses hate some lawyers? Because they hold them responsible for their actions. Unless of course, they're using lawyers to go after someone who didn't pay a credit card bill.

tarrant84: they're using lawyers to go after someone who didn't pay a credit card bill.

Or because they didn't put a "HOT" label on some coffee.

Just because you don't/didn't go to college, doesn't mean you have to work at Wal-Mart for $5.15 for the rest of your life. I know plenty of people who don't even have high school diplomas who are doing as well (or better) than I am, with my fancy schmancy degree. Ambition and a good work ethic are really all you need in America. That sounds sappy, but I really believe it is true.

That being said...

There are good arguments on both sides of this debate. I think what this bill is *trying* to accomplish, is to make it more likely that someone who needs/wants credit can get it. Personally, I think it should be as difficult as possible for someone to get credit, so that they only get it if they REALLY NEED/WANT IT. Which, incidentally, is my same attitude about voting.

I hate being in debt, and I wish I had never gotten into it, but looking back, I don't know how I would've gotten along without it.

On one hand, credit companies HAVE to make money, or they shut down, and NO ONE gets credit, but on the other hand, people with not-so-great credit reports are in huge demand of it, but with that comes a higher risk of bankruptcy. Double edged sword...tricky business this lawmaking.

damitjim: Or because they didn't put a "HOT" label on some coffee.

Actually, what REALLY happened with that...

McDonalds cups blow out at the bottom when filled with liquid of a certain temperature. The company knew about this, yet figured it would be cheaper not to redesign the cup. The server filled it with scolding hot coffee and the bottom blew out.

It disfigured the woman's legs and genitals. She deserved every dime she was awarded, and more.