quade 4 #51 May 20, 2009 I think it was one of "yours". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996 It's still a good idea and needs to be brought up again.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #52 May 20, 2009 QuoteI think it was one of "yours". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996 It's still a good idea and needs to be brought up again. On this you and I will agree. Regarless of the side you take (if president) your true intentions would show. Good for us in this case"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #53 May 21, 2009 QuoteI think it was one of "yours". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996 It's still a good idea and needs to be brought up again. The only way I can see it not being defeated in the SC again would be for it to work in a manner similar to a normal veto, with the exception that each stricken item would have to be voted back into the bill by a 2/3 majority of the House and Congress, not an overall vote of the bill entire.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #54 May 28, 2009 More of the same. Protect those who run up debt at the expense of those who responsibly keep it in check. Maybe restricting credit in a credit crisis will be a good thing. Quote I personally think is going to be the negatice impact of the bill. I agree that there are some practices that need to be more closely regulated, but telling a credit card company that they can't charge late payments for 60 days despite those charges being clearly stated in the contract, or eliminating over limit fees is going to cost those of us that use our credit responsibly. Watching the news I saw a report a few minutes ago about the methods that are going to be used to make up for the loss of income the credit card companies are going to see from this bill. We can expect higher ATM fees, slightly higher interest rates across the board, and more annual fees. So once again, everyone who acts responsibly, doesn't abuse their credit, and accepts fault when they miss a payment and works to remedy the situation on their own is being screwed by the irresponsible. Is it just me or is the country experiencinga systematic destruction of responsibility at both the personal and corporate level? We're bailing out companies that should have failed, and giving irresponsible borrowers more incentive to continue their ways. It started in the last administration and is being continued in this one, pure BS if you ask me.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #55 May 28, 2009 Quote I personally think is going to be the negatice impact of the bill. I agree that there are some practices that need to be more closely regulated, but telling a credit card company that they can't charge late payments for 60 days despite those charges being clearly stated in the contract, or eliminating over limit fees is going to cost those of us that use our credit responsibly. Watching the news I saw a report a few minutes ago about the methods that are going to be used to make up for the loss of income the credit card companies are going to see from this bill. We can expect higher ATM fees, slightly higher interest rates across the board, and more annual fees. that is the threat, but reality will likely differ. People haven't paid an annual fee for years and many will simply cancel the card and move on. While customers who pay in full don't generate interest and penalty income, they still generate income on their charges, with low risk to the bank. Good business to have. I think you misunderstand the 60 day rule - should review it. And the overlimit fee was a joke - the bank should be declining the transaction if it puts the user over their limit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #56 May 29, 2009 I think you misunderstand the 60 day rule - should review it. And the overlimit fee was a joke - the bank should be declining the transaction if it puts the user over their limit. Quote I may very well have misunderstood the 60 day rule, I was under the impression that late fees cannot be imposed for 60 days, which is completely unfair to the credit card companies. The over limit fees though, are clearly stated in the contract, they may not be right, but the user is aware of them and "accepts" responsibility when they use the card at or near their limit. Just like the penalty one must pay when they write a bad check.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nelyubin 0 #57 June 13, 2009 In any case, on the accounts you want to pay. Can not the money, pay the property. I watched that sign??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #58 June 14, 2009 I think GWB would have signed the same bill - which was bipartisan. Really bipartisan, not like the spendulus bill. The bill does nothing to address the real problem, which is all out usury by those companies in many cases. It only looks at a few minor issues. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kelpdiver 2 #55 May 28, 2009 Quote I personally think is going to be the negatice impact of the bill. I agree that there are some practices that need to be more closely regulated, but telling a credit card company that they can't charge late payments for 60 days despite those charges being clearly stated in the contract, or eliminating over limit fees is going to cost those of us that use our credit responsibly. Watching the news I saw a report a few minutes ago about the methods that are going to be used to make up for the loss of income the credit card companies are going to see from this bill. We can expect higher ATM fees, slightly higher interest rates across the board, and more annual fees. that is the threat, but reality will likely differ. People haven't paid an annual fee for years and many will simply cancel the card and move on. While customers who pay in full don't generate interest and penalty income, they still generate income on their charges, with low risk to the bank. Good business to have. I think you misunderstand the 60 day rule - should review it. And the overlimit fee was a joke - the bank should be declining the transaction if it puts the user over their limit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #56 May 29, 2009 I think you misunderstand the 60 day rule - should review it. And the overlimit fee was a joke - the bank should be declining the transaction if it puts the user over their limit. Quote I may very well have misunderstood the 60 day rule, I was under the impression that late fees cannot be imposed for 60 days, which is completely unfair to the credit card companies. The over limit fees though, are clearly stated in the contract, they may not be right, but the user is aware of them and "accepts" responsibility when they use the card at or near their limit. Just like the penalty one must pay when they write a bad check.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nelyubin 0 #57 June 13, 2009 In any case, on the accounts you want to pay. Can not the money, pay the property. I watched that sign??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #58 June 14, 2009 I think GWB would have signed the same bill - which was bipartisan. Really bipartisan, not like the spendulus bill. The bill does nothing to address the real problem, which is all out usury by those companies in many cases. It only looks at a few minor issues. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Nelyubin 0 #57 June 13, 2009 In any case, on the accounts you want to pay. Can not the money, pay the property. I watched that sign??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #58 June 14, 2009 I think GWB would have signed the same bill - which was bipartisan. Really bipartisan, not like the spendulus bill. The bill does nothing to address the real problem, which is all out usury by those companies in many cases. It only looks at a few minor issues. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
