Mixed blessing: credit card reform may shock some

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why do you think you have more control over the government than the free market?

I try to judge all organizations by the same standards. It doesn't really matter to me whether they call themselves businesses, non-profit organizations, charities, clubs, gangs, governments, or any other name they want to have.

In reality, the average American has little to no recourse when wronged by the American government. Your individual vote is meaningless and any complaint will most likely get mired in re-tape. Anyone who is familiar with the immigration process knows this. There really isn't much you can do.

Large businesses are mostly the same. If I don't like something, there isn't much I can do. The difference is, the business has no power if I chose not to do business with them. The government, on the other hand, takes a large part of my paycheck, regulates what I am allowed to do, and doesn't really make me any sort of concrete promises in return.

So, it's not that I trust business or the free market more than government. It's just that businesses don't have any power that you don't give them.

No power if you aren't their consumer? Tell that to the families who've lost loved ones because their water supply had toxic levels of carcinogenic chemicals. Toxins that have seeped into the water wells because a company decided to pay someone to dump their waste instead of doing it safely, knowing that the fine for improper disposal is far cheaper than having to dispose of them properly. Then add insult to injury by those who wish to limit the ability for the families of the victim to sue.

[Ali G. 37]

Why do you think you have more control over the government than the free market?

We vote a government in or out, yet have no say in the operation of a private organization.

I try to judge all organizations by the same standards. It doesn't really matter to me whether they call themselves businesses, non-profit organizations, charities, clubs, gangs, governments, or any other name they want to have.

In reality, the average American has little to no recourse when wronged by the American government. Your individual vote is meaningless and any complaint will most likely get mired in re-tape. Anyone who is familiar with the immigration process knows this. There really isn't much you can do.

Large businesses are mostly the same. If I don't like something, there isn't much I can do. The difference is, the business has no power if I chose not to do business with them. The government, on the other hand, takes a large part of my paycheck, regulates what I am allowed to do, and doesn't really make me any sort of concrete promises in return.

So, it's not that I trust business or the free market more than government. It's just that businesses don't have any power that you don't give them.

The government works for us but it's only as efficient as we make it. After all, when you pay peanuts you get monkeys. My fellow conservatives in Aus overhauled the majority of government departments and consolidated duplicated or unnecessary ones. The government is now a well oiled machine. Government departments are basically now operated like efficient private companies; which means they now hold the employees accountable for their work and also compensate them accordingly for good work. Actually, considering how important it is for them to do their job, as it's critical to the progress of the country, they are paid more than the private sector.

To the contrary, many here like to scapegoat and hate our government or call for its destruction; which is stupid and leads to no actual improvement whatsoever. Furthermore, many of the folks who say less or smaller government tend to endorse each county/city having their own police, schools, taxes etc; which is a huge waste of the taxpayer's money and duplication of the same jobs. Whereas, the conservatives in Aus consolidated such services, therefore, everything is now managed on a state level. This not only saves billions of dollars per year but actually does reduce the size of the government.

The other issue here is that people clearly fall for the song and dance of a candidate and don't bother actually looking at a candidates resume. Many of these often old US politicians end up having their pockets lined by private organizations and lobbyist. Also keep in mind that a company's sole purpose is to increase the dividends for their shareholders, with some organizations doing so at any cost. America will always come second to greed. Hence why this needs to be regulated to ensure 'We the People' always come before profit.

t.

[Ali G. 37]

No power if you aren't their consumer? Tell that to the families who've lost loved ones because their water supply had toxic levels of carcinogenic chemicals. Toxins that have seeped into the water wells because a company decided to pay someone to dump their waste instead of doing it safely, knowing that the fine for improper disposal is far cheaper than having to dispose of them properly. Then add insult to injury by those who wish to limit the ability for the families of the victim to sue.

Yep exactly my point.

This is what happens when companies are allowed to operate like the wild wild west. Whereas, there would be no need for an Erin Brockovich in other first world countries as the executives and board of such a company would probably be jailed for life, for putting profit ahead of the people's lives. I know Australia has moved one step further and the courts are permitted to acquire the executive's personal assets and use them to pay the victims, with a lookback period of 10 years; just in case assets have been transferred to relatives, to deceive the commonwealth.

Being able to sue in such a situation is the right thing and is exactly when you should be able to take them to the cleaners.. Being able to sue McDonalds for $10 million for spilling coffee on yourself or sue a doctor for $2 million for misplacing a chart or sue a school district for $1 million because you slipped, yet there being no financial loss, is what is disingenuous and ruining for the first case that genuinely needs the lawsuit. You cannot ignore that the latter type of lawsuits are not permissible in the majority of international courts.

[trinket 30]

Since I work for credit card company. One thing I want to tip to whoever makes payment by phone is to make a post-dated payment. A lot of credit card companies are going to charge you for the same date payment starting this week. They are considering same date payment as expedite payment.

[SMR 368]

No power if you aren't their consumer? Tell that to the families who've lost loved ones because their water supply had toxic levels of carcinogenic chemicals. Toxins that have seeped into the water wells because a company decided to pay someone to dump their waste instead of doing it safely, knowing that the fine for improper disposal is far cheaper than having to dispose of them properly. Then add insult to injury by those who wish to limit the ability for the families of the victim to sue.

People do unethical things. They should be punished. I have no problem with that. I think they should be punished more strictly. I really have no problem with the Chinese system of executing executives whose unethical practices lead to deaths.

You can go on about the evils of big business all day, and I wouldn't do much to deny it. All I'm saying is that government is equally problematic and more mandatory.

Yes, you can vote for the government. But when was the last time an election was decided by one vote.

[Salsa Shark 0]

I get a little fed-up every time I hear commercials on the radio about companies that help people re-negotiate their credit card debt. These companies are in effect twisting the arms of the credit card companies to make them accept lesser payments. The credit card companies accept a loss to avoid a larger loss caused by default. That's why the terms of credit cards are so unfavorable. They have to pay for all the deadbeats.

The credit companies would >love< for you to believe that, but it's completely untrue.

The vast majority of these "debt counselors" are affiliates of credit companies to begin with. If you can't twist the arm of a creditor, what makes you think that some random company could do so unless they already had an agreement with these companies to begin with?

No conspiracy theories here--if you look hard enough, you'll see the connections and most don't bother denying it. It's the same approach that the Better Business Bureau has--they'll act on your behalf, but they have no real power over businesses unless those businesses grant it.

[SMR 368]

The credit companies would >love< for you to believe that, but it's completely untrue.

The vast majority of these "debt counselors" are affiliates of credit companies to begin with. If you can't twist the arm of a creditor, what makes you think that some random company could do so unless they already had an agreement with these companies to begin with?

No conspiracy theories here--if you look hard enough, you'll see the connections and most don't bother denying it. It's the same approach that the Better Business Bureau has--they'll act on your behalf, but they have no real power over businesses unless those businesses grant it.

Of course they are affiliated with the credit card company. They are working to reduce losses due to credit default.

All I am saying is if you have $50,000 of credit card debt and some combination of companies, affiliates and whatever work out a deal where you only have to pay half, someone has to eat a $25,000 loss. And someone gets away with $25k of free stuff.

[Peikko 1,575]

You have a very skewed notion of debt, how debt recovery works and what actually is owed. Most of what is owed is interest - but hey, let's not let little things like that get in the way of your phlegm.

[SMR 368]

You have a very skewed notion of debt, how debt recovery works and what actually is owed. Most of what is owed is interest - but hey, let's not let little things like that get in the way of your phlegm.

All of what is owed is money. How you incur a debt you can't pay for is not the point (or do you think that interest is unethical? If that is the case, I want a loan from you).

[Peikko 1,575]

You wouldn't do well in debt recovery. Interest is a perfectly valid business practice. No one, least of all myself is disputing that. What is in dispute is how the interest is applied to the original debt and equally importantly how transparently that is reported to the consumer.

Debt recovery knows quite well that the cow is of no use when it has been milked dry. What they prefer is to carry on milking but sometimes, the cow just gets old.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I'm not really seeing a negative. My response to this has been find out which of my cards won't be charging an annual rate and then close the other's down. People with good credit will start doing this more and more.

[SMR 368]

You wouldn't do well in debt recovery. Interest is a perfectly valid business practice. No one, least of all myself is disputing that. What is in dispute is how the interest is applied to the original debt and equally importantly how transparently that is reported to the consumer.

Debt recovery knows quite well that the cow is of no use when it has been milked dry. What they prefer is to carry on milking but sometimes, the cow just gets old.

When you say I wouldn't do well in debt recovery, do you mean as a collector or a debtor? Anyways, I'm not going to be either, so it isn't a big issue.

I realize that debt collectors are simply trying to continue milking the cow. But if the cow would just pay what it owed, the whole exercise would be unnecessary. It's something that is done only because the cow could declare bankruptcy and pay nothing.

[Peikko 1,575]

When you say I wouldn't do well in debt recovery, do you mean as a collector or a debtor? Anyways, I'm not going to be either, so it isn't a big issue.

I realize that debt collectors are simply trying to continue milking the cow. But if the cow would just pay what it owed, the whole exercise would be unnecessary. It's something that is done only because the cow could declare bankruptcy and pay nothing.

Geez, you think? If everyone paid cash, there would never be a problem and?

[SMR 368]

Geez, you think? If everyone paid cash, there would never be a problem and?

That's all I'm trying to say. If you don't like being in debt, don't borrow money.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Had we regulated lending standards, the majority of this mortgage mess would have been avoided. A mess that has affected even those without a mortgage, in terms of a drastic drop in property value.

Excuse me.... I was under the impression we had regulated standards until they were removed by our illustrious leaders...

Edited February 22, 2010 by PhiLandShiR