Credit Cards, Guns and Ammo: Thanks, Washington 21 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Pop quiz: What’s the quickest way to ensure that credit availability to consumers will dry up immediately?
That’s an easy one…make it less profitable for credit card issuers to lend! Combined with the additional risk of lending in a recession, that’ll do the trick. And that’s exactly what Obama’s anti-business gang did next.
From the New York Times:
Under the measure…banks and card companies would be required to give 45 days’ notice before a change in interest rates…would be prohibited from raising rates on existing balances unless a card holder fell 60 days behind on minimum payments…makes it much harder to issue credit cards to students and prevents companies from charging a fee to those who exceed their credit limit unless the customer elects to pay the fee in exchange for being allowed to charge more.
OK, great. So more protection for people who aren’t able to figure out what they can afford and what they can’t…what else does the bill accomplish?
But the credit card victory came at a cost that angered some backers of the legislation: approval of an unrelated provision allowing visitors to national parks and wildlife refuges to carry loaded weapons if they are otherwise licensed to possess guns.
Awwwww Hell Yeah! I was just talking to my Mom the other day about how much easier this economic environment would be on us all if only we could walk into National Parks with LOADED weapons. I mean, yeah, I guess it’s pretty cool to be able to visit Jellystone Park with an empty gun, but loaded? Now that’s stimulus.
I’m going to give you the name of the responsible politician who snuck this psychotic provision into a bill designed to protect consumers knowing that the Dem’s wouldn’t vote it down no matter what. That way, when you see him at Dunkin’ Donuts, you’ll know to be careful. After all, if he wants guns in the park, imagine what he’s strapped with headed for his morning coffee.
Our intrepid statesman is Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma…American hero.
So let’s sum up what we’ve learned…we have a bill meant to protect consumers, but that will actually, in the real world where we live, REDUCE the amount of available credit as issuers say “f@ck it, too much hassle for not enough profit”.
And then the cherry on top of this bill, which won by a vote of 361 to 64 in the House, is that we get to roll up on National Parks from coast to coast packing heat, loaded guns. This bill may work out well in a Red Dawn type scenario, but barring that, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say it’s one of the stupidest pieces of legislation ever to drop out of the armpit of DC.
Congrats, guys! Homerun!
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Joseph L. Sha...
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
Consumers who are not saddled with usurious interest rates and outrageous fees will reduce their debts and eventually return to spending money and supporting the real economy.
Excessive interest and fees on credit cards, when paid to major Wall Street banks, merely feeds the monsters that have destroyed the economy, worse than useless.
Did you even take the time to read the legilation that Tom Coburn put into this bill? Are you going to join the rest of the masses and jump before you even understand what the hell you are talking about? Tom Coburn has tried for the past several years to introduce this legislation for a simple up or down vote (the way its supposed to be done..right?) and every step of the way its been subverted and otherwise disallowed to be introduced by the likes of Sen Reid. Now if you truly believe in the 2nd ammendment then you'll understand that every person has the right to protect themselves from immenant danger...and a stick or a rock on the ground is not going to keep the bear or mountain lion off of you or your loved ones I'm sorry to say. Poachers are still gonna poach with or without this legislation and psychotic killers are still gonna kill with or without this legislation, you'll never get the guns out of their hands all this does is give the law abiding people a fighting chance against agressive situations...maybe even saving a life in the process.
What could the benefit possibly be other than to satiate the "slippery slope" crowd, and what in Crom's name does it have to do with credit cards?
On May 21 11:24 AM 2houndz wrote:
> You mean that I can now defend myself against grizzly bears when
> I visit Glacier National Park? You are right - no American should
> be able to do that.
Aside from that, carrying in the vast wilderness areas of the Natl. Parks is probably the safest place in the Country.
This is the ranting of the "Anti Gun Nuts" --"Turn 'em in and burn 'em" crowd.
Now if The Mexican Border was included in the list, I would say they were finally waking up to the benefits of gun ownership our Forefathers envisioned!.
Something is seriously wrong with our banking system and the people who are running it these days. I'm not a big fan of government intervention in markets, but it honestly looks like SOMEBODY needs to step in here with rules to protect banks' customers (and investors). And compensation caps would be only one of a number of good steps in that direction, IMHO.
Besides, it's only common sense that nobody should be able to issue a loan at one percentage rate, and then unilaterally change the terms of the deal in midstream. Such talk surely created an uproar when Congress started talking about doing that to bankers' compensation agreements. If it's not fair for the people to abrogate bankers' compensation agreements, then why do bankers think it's OK for them to abrogate their lending agreements with the people? I would say an interest rate is certainly a material part of any lending contract. Wouldn't you agree?
And from a holistic perspective, it's probably a good thing if we start weaning people off their credit dependency anyways. If less credit becomes generally available because it's not "profitable enough" for the banks, that would be a good thing. People would have to start living within their means. And as soon as we get the people adequately conditioned in this respect, we'll have to go to work on our governments!
Check out:
www.highbeam.com/doc/1...
www.wesh.com/news/9267...
www.kalispell.com/stop...
On May 21 11:30 AM Joshua Morgan Brown wrote:
> i guess you and i have a different view of recreation....i have no
> problem with hunting or defense against animals, but c'mon...should
> we have a blanket law allowing loaded guns in every park, where kids
> are playing no less?
>
> What could the benefit possibly be other than to satiate the "slippery
> slope" crowd, and what in Crom's name does it have to do with credit
> cards?
>
Crime in National Parks...www.the-eggman.com/wri...
Just because you are in a 'park' does not mean that you are now safe from crime. About the only places that are crime-free are inside a police station, inside a court room, and inside a gun store. In all other locations, you need to have responsible law-abiding people able to protect themselves from harm.
On May 21 11:30 AM Joshua Morgan Brown wrote:
> i guess you and i have a different view of recreation....i have no
> problem with hunting or defense against animals, but c'mon...should
> we have a blanket law allowing loaded guns in every park, where kids
> are playing no less?
>
> What could the benefit possibly be other than to satiate the "slippery
> slope" crowd, and what in Crom's name does it have to do with credit
> cards?
>
Wow, you mean a signed contract with a Credit Card company will actually be held within the standards of contract law?? Say it ain't so!
Dear Mr. Brown,
Your outrage is missed placed. You should have been outraged when the bank lobby got the law passed through Congress that allowed them to flatly ignore contract agreements.
and for the gun guys...im not anti-second amendment and I've been in some of the most incredible public land we have available in this country, I just don't understand what the f%$# this provision needed to be shoveled into a consumer protection act. This is the kind of BS politics that should sicken every last one of you.
On May 21 05:17 PM Third Party Guy wrote:
> "banks and card companies would be required to give 45 days’ notice
> before a change in interest rates…"
>
> Wow, you mean a signed contract with a Credit Card company will actually
> be held within the standards of contract law?? Say it ain't so!
>
>
> Dear Mr. Brown,
> Your outrage is missed placed. You should have been outraged when
> the bank lobby got the law passed through Congress that allowed them
> to flatly ignore contract agreements.
...lenders are not allowed to increase rates on existing balances (ever!)
Wait, this is a variable rate loan isn't it???? Not any more! What if inflation runs away & the 30-yr yield goes to 15%?
Gee, when I put money into a money-market fund a year ago I was getting 3.5% & now it is only 1.5%. Can I get congress to pass a law so that it would have stayed at 3.5% forever??
I thought most credit cards were fixed rate? With the rates as high as they generally are, and given the fact that base rates are now at generational lows, who in their right mind would sign up for a variable rate credit card and then max the card out?
No, wait. This is the American consumer we're talking about, isn't it? (lol)
Maybe we need to read the fine print, but I always thought that credit card rates were fixed for the limit authorized on that card. If the credit limit is raised, I could see a new rate applying to the NEW credit. But the old rate should apply to the original loan commitment (card limit). And if not to the original card max, then certainly to any purchases charged against that card up to the point in time that the bank changed the rate.
Otherwise, what would stop banks from offering teaser rates of 0 or 1 percent to reel in lots of customers, get their balances transferred to that bank, and then say: "Oops, things have changed. The rate on your loan is now 325 percent per month, unless you pay off the balance in 30 days" ????
But once that contract is signed, for "x" credit at "x" percentage rate, I don't think EITHER side should be able to unilaterally change the terms of the contract.
If either side can, then it's not really a contract is it? And if it's not a contract, then where is the obligation for the consumer to make any payment - at all?
The bill allowing for concealed carry of loaded firearms does protect the consumer. It allows them to defend themselves from the other people in national parks that are carrying guns: The criminals.
On May 22 10:56 AM PaymentsGuy wrote:
> It doesn't matter what you think of guns. This bit of legislation
> simply did not belong in this bill. Coburn couldn't get it passed
> on its own merits for the past seven years even with a more gun-friendly
> Senate, so he literally snuck it into a bill he knew would be passed.
> Its as disgusting as slipping in an earmark.
Credit cards were supposed to be a convenience items -- so that you didn't have to carry large amounts of cash, when you travel, or when you were purchasing large ticket items -- and maybe as a really short term loan for those purchases.
Everyone knows that the interest rate of the loan was floating, and yes - that the interest rate were high given the short term nature of the instrument and the fact that the loan was un-secured.
It seems now that that folks assume that the cerdit card is a type of income supplement -- i.e. as a country those who can least afford to to do it (i.e. the low to mid income folks) are spending beyond their means and using credit cards as the enabling mechanisms.
Do they need some addtional protections -- maybe (some might have been confused by the advertizing). Do the banks have a point as well -- maybe (they wrote a valid legal contract).
BUT unless the ordinary citizens do not balance their spending with the income stream -- this will be a never ending problem.