Protect Those Poor Ickle Fools


Reply
 
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Can_I_just_be_Jo is offline Can_I_just_be_Jo Post #1  July 29,2010, 11:20am

blames self-help books

Power Poster

Joined: Oct 2009

STL

Posts: 4,879

See profile

I will admit I haven't read the 2,200+ pages of the financial reform bill. What I do read is my credit card statement. I know that paying the minimum payment every month, well, pretty much you will never pay it off. Still most people that only pay the minimum know this, the problem is they can't pay more than that. Especially during an economy like this.

I pay well over the minimum and pay that silly thing off as quickly as possible. So I get my current bill, the balance was just under $300. Up until last month the minimum payment on this balance would be $10, it is now $50. Taken to the next logical step this could mean that if the balance was $3,000 the minimum would go from $100 to $500?

So my question is simple, how does this help the little guy who could barely afford the minimum before? Now people who would have scraped by until things recoved will default on these loans and further destroy thier credit. How did this help?
 
  Reply With Quote
AudioDad is offline AudioDad Post #2  July 29,2010, 12:07pm
AudioDad's Avatar

Enthusiast

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 751

See profile

Can_I_just_be_Jo wrote :
I will admit I haven't read the 2,200+ pages of the financial reform bill. What I do read is my credit card statement. I know that paying the minimum payment every month, well, pretty much you will never pay it off. Still most people that only pay the minimum know this, the problem is they can't pay more than that. Especially during an economy like this.

I pay well over the minimum and pay that silly thing off as quickly as possible. So I get my current bill, the balance was just under $300. Up until last month the minimum payment on this balance would be $10, it is now $50. Taken to the next logical step this could mean that if the balance was $3,000 the minimum would go from $100 to $500?

So my question is simple, how does this help the little guy who could barely afford the minimum before? Now people who would have scraped by until things recoved will default on these loans and further destroy thier credit. How did this help?
I suspect what you're seeing is the credit card company's response to the bill, not some specific line item contained in it. It should be noted that the credit card company's were both raising interest rates and minimum payments long before the bill passed....at least one of mine was which is why I cut up the card and closed the account (I've reduced my entire debt load to my mortgage and a car payment).

It was, after all, the predatory lending practices and Vegas-like mindset of a fair chunk of the financial/investment industry that led to this bill. While it can probably be argued that the bill went too far, the financial industry brought this not only upon itself but the rest of us as well - even after the President warned banks and credit companies not to bilk their customers upon passage of the bill. Either existing protections were not being enforced, or they weren't enough to prevent the kinds of activities that led to this latest financial mess. Whatever the case may be, the status quo was simply unacceptable.
 
  Reply With Quote
Can_I_just_be_Jo is offline Can_I_just_be_Jo Post #3  July 29,2010, 12:27pm

blames self-help books

Power Poster

Joined: Oct 2009

STL

Posts: 4,879

See profile

AudioDad wrote :
I suspect what you're seeing is the credit card company's response to the bill, not some specific line item contained in it. It should be noted that the credit card company's were both raising interest rates and minimum payments long before the bill passed....at least one of mine was which is why I cut up the card and closed the account (I've reduced my entire debt load to my mortgage and a car payment).

It was, after all, the predatory lending practices and Vegas-like mindset of a fair chunk of the financial/investment industry that led to this bill. While it can probably be argued that the bill went too far, the financial industry brought this not only upon itself but the rest of us as well - even after the President warned banks and credit companies not to bilk their customers upon passage of the bill. Either existing protections were not being enforced, or they weren't enough to prevent the kinds of activities that led to this latest financial mess. Whatever the case may be, the status quo was simply unacceptable.
The bill required credit card companies to up the minimum payments to a level that would pay off the credit cards in some period of time. I am not sure about the actual wording mind you. I don't think credit card companies are nice people but I just haven't found a darn thing in that law yet that solves the problems that created the mess.

Hey if anyone knows where I can find the darn thing in PDF that would be great. I am wicked good at keyword searches.

Although I haven't read this bill I have written several papers for school on what caused this mess. I also tore apart and analyzed the financial reports of Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, and Citigroup (before and after the repeal of Glass Steagal). This was all done with data, not articles I found on the internet or otherwise. I probably know a bit more than the average guy what happened.

In my opinion everyone had their hand in the cookie jar, we the consumer turned a blind eye because we liked what the increased access to credit got us. It is a given we need to cut the cord with Fannie and Freddie. I wonder why something that important was not in the law. Over 2,200 pages you would think there would have been room.
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #4  July 29,2010, 1:33pm
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

I don't know.

Maybe we need to punish personal irresponsibility in the private sector much, much harder than we do.

There are just so many ways that people in the lending/ banking/ housing scenario did not feel anywhere near the full extent of their bad choices.

Even homebuyers that defaulted instead of selling their homes at a loss did so because it costed them less to do so. Why should they not suffer the loss in value of their home?? The loss should end with them.

Our bankruptcy laws cause those same problems as well.

People gaining when things go well & not losing when things don't go well.

I would be in favor of far harsher treatment of actions that result in harm to others...both criminally & financially.

Of course this is a big old pipe dream so we will need more imaginative solutions to such problems. That sounds scary!!!!
 
  Reply With Quote
Can_I_just_be_Jo is offline Can_I_just_be_Jo Post #5  July 29,2010, 1:43pm

blames self-help books

Power Poster

Joined: Oct 2009

STL

Posts: 4,879

See profile

bigfincat wrote :
I don't know.

Maybe we need to punish personal irresponsibility in the private sector much, much harder than we do.

There are just so many ways that people in the lending/ banking/ housing scenario did not feel anywhere near the full extent of their bad choices.

Even homebuyers that defaulted instead of selling their homes at a loss did so because it costed them less to do so. Why should they not suffer the loss in value of their home?? The loss should end with them.

Our bankruptcy laws cause those same problems as well.

People gaining when things go well & not losing when things don't go well.

I would be in favor of far harsher treatment of actions that result in harm to others...both criminally & financially.

Of course this is a big old pipe dream so we will need more imaginative solutions to such problems. That sounds scary!!!!
I agree with you. I think a great first start is instead of listening to lobbyists Congress actually uses their brains (if they have them) and all those resources they have to figure out what the real problems are and target them.

We were lazy they were lazy and bad things happened. I think one huge reason America is unhappy is we had to grow up and tighten our belts and Congress hasn't done the same. It is hard to choke down self control when you see someone spending money that you earned like there is an unlimited fund.
 
  Reply With Quote
AudioDad is offline AudioDad Post #6  July 29,2010, 1:56pm
AudioDad's Avatar

Enthusiast

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 751

See profile

Can_I_just_be_Jo wrote :
The bill required credit card companies to up the minimum payments to a level that would pay off the credit cards in some period of time. I am not sure about the actual wording mind you. I don't think credit card companies are nice people but I just haven't found a darn thing in that law yet that solves the problems that created the mess.
If true, that would certainly be a smoking gun. I'd be very interested in seeing the exact wording in the bill that requires credit card companies to do that. Still doesn't explain why CitiBank was jacking up my interest rates and minimum payments with my credit rating in the 800's long before the bill ever passed.

wrote :
Although I haven't read this bill I have written several papers for school on what caused this mess. I also tore apart and analyzed the financial reports of Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, and Citigroup (before and after the repeal of Glass Steagal). This was all done with data, not articles I found on the internet or otherwise. I probably know a bit more than the average guy what happened.
I don't claim to be a financial/investment guru or historian by any means. I know the repeal of Glass Steagal in 1999 played a part in the recent financial collapse, but I'm confused. Glass Steagal was passed in 1933 in the wake on the great depression. You actually examined the financial reports (which ones??) of B of A, ML and Citigroup from over 70 years ago - before and after the passage of Glass Steagal? Did Citigroup even exist as a company back then, even under a different name?

wrote :
In my opinion everyone had their hand in the cookie jar, we the consumer turned a blind eye because we liked what the increased access to credit got us. It is a given we need to cut the cord with Fannie and Freddie. I wonder why something that important was not in the law. Over 2,200 pages you would think there would have been room.
No argument with any of that. Greed wasn't limited to K Street or Wall Street. Still, one would think those two institutions would've learned their lessons after the S&L debacle and dotbomb explosion.
 
  Reply With Quote
Can_I_just_be_Jo is offline Can_I_just_be_Jo Post #7  July 29,2010, 2:03pm

blames self-help books

Power Poster

Joined: Oct 2009

STL

Posts: 4,879

See profile

AudioDad wrote :
If true, that would certainly be a smoking gun. I'd be very interested in seeing the exact wording in the bill that requires credit card companies to do that. Still doesn't explain why CitiBank was jacking up my interest rates and minimum payments with my credit rating in the 800's long before the bill ever passed.



I don't claim to be a financial/investment guru or historian by any means. I know the repeal of Glass Steagal in 1999 played a part in the recent financial collapse, but I'm confused. Glass Steagal was passed in 1933 in the wake on the great depression. You actually examined the financial reports (which ones??) of B of A, ML and Citigroup from over 70 years ago - before and after the passage of Glass Steagal? Did Citigroup even exist as a company back then, even under a different name?



No argument with any of that. Greed wasn't limited to K Street or Wall Street. Still, one would think those two institutions would've learned their lessons after the S&L debacle and dotbomb explosion.
Your rates were jacked up because the bill capped the rates but grandfathered the old rates in. Unless the wording was changed in the past month.

GSB repealed GS in 1999, I only went back to 1995. Sorry about the confusion.

Fannie and Freddie were not the ones that should have learned a lesson it is our government. Bah, I want to say 1994 the Clinton administration made changes to their structure so that they could take on more loans pretty much to fund the community reinvestment act. Not throwing this just on Clinton it seemed like everyone liked to use the duo for creative mortgage financing.
 
  Reply With Quote
AudioDad is offline AudioDad Post #8  July 29,2010, 2:12pm
AudioDad's Avatar

Enthusiast

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 751

See profile

Can_I_just_be_Jo wrote :
Your rates were jacked up because the bill capped the rates but grandfathered the old rates in. Unless the wording was changed in the past month.
But as I stated before, my rates and minimums were being raised *before* the bill was passed - like almost two years before anyone in D.C. was talking about a financial reform bill.

wrote :
GSB repealed GS in 1999, I only went back to 1995. Sorry about the confusion.
I think you meant GLB....Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Sorry, don't mean to be OCD on ya.

wrote :
Fannie and Freddie were not the ones that should have learned a lesson it is our government. Bah, I want to say 1994 the Clinton administration made changes to their structure so that they could take on more loans pretty much to fund the community reinvestment act. Not throwing this just on Clinton it seemed like everyone liked to use the duo for creative mortgage financing.
Sorry, I should've been more clear there. I meant Wall Street and K Street should've learned their lessons. It's been awhile, but I read the original CRA as well as the changes that were made to it during the first Bush administration and those under Clinton. I think the CRA was well intentioned - combatting the practice of redlining - but was indeed taken too far.
Last edited by AudioDad; July 29,2010 at 2:21pm.
 
  Reply With Quote
bigfincat is offline bigfincat Post #9  July 29,2010, 2:19pm
bigfincat's Avatar

Virtuoso

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 4,077

See profile

Can_I_just_be_Jo wrote :
I agree with you. I think a great first start is instead of listening to lobbyists Congress actually uses their brains (if they have them) and all those resources they have to figure out what the real problems are and target them.

We were lazy they were lazy and bad things happened. I think one huge reason America is unhappy is we had to grow up and tighten our belts and Congress hasn't done the same. It is hard to choke down self control when you see someone spending money that you earned like there is an unlimited fund.
I tend to blame the children much more than the babysitter....so our primary targets might be different in that sense.
 
  Reply With Quote
tjlpd is offline tjlpd Post #10  July 29,2010, 2:31pm
tjlpd's Avatar

loves a flirt

Veteran

Joined: Jun 2009

Posts: 1,151

See profile

Jo I am assuming this is the bill you want:

www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4173/text
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply


« The message is finally getting through. | Politics | Cheating Pollies »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Topics
Topic Topic Starter Board Replies Last Post
Let's Protect Ourselves tink333 Widows/Widowers 4 July 25,2010 1:38pm
Protect the Innocent? Can_I_just_be_Jo Love in the Fast Lane 25 June 28,2010 3:05am
Protect Your Wireless Network MicMan Caution-Warning-Danger 2 May 2,2010 8:11pm
Ladies, protect yourself, and be careful... Oregon_Coast_Guy Chit Chat 13 February 28,2010 12:22am
Names have been changed to protect the innocent? D_Lion Atheists, Humorists, and Science 9 August 9,2009 12:29pm

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“The tennis ball story is a good analogy, RD, and that's how I interpret "gut feeling" -- a conclusion/sense of something that's a thought, not a feeling; though it will have feelings associated with ... ” –  Sassafras54

Join the “Is Your Gut Leading - or Misleading You?” discussion

“Agree. Given where you are emotionally, I would cease all communication with Mr. Trade Show. You're vulnerable. He's up for a challenge. It's playing with fire. You'll be in a bad place in the ... ” –  emma_hazards

Join the “Received lovely email from former poofer” discussion

“How about phone calls, then?” –  barbarella_42

Join the “Advice on Response time” discussion

“I have never spoken to a woman like he has. Yeah, I have never spoken to a woman like that either. It is a hard call to whether he is just as jerk, or whether he is a player. Both are feasible ... ” –  ScottK

Join the “So, men. Explain this to me, please!” discussion

“I have come to this same conclusion. Thank you.” –  bibittyboo

Join the “Confused about date #2” discussion

“Harmonygirl, I do not usually make up my mind on blanket situations but instead would examine each one on it's own merits, so I cannot answer your question. However, just in the going about of daily ... ” –  Ephemera

Join the “Atheism, Religion and Tolerance” discussion

“I was ok until the kiss on the cheek part....That doesn't sound like your defenses were up at all... It's one thing for a guy to walk up and start with the cheesy lines....But as soon as I say, "no ... ” –  Ingytravel

Join the “So this guy walks into a bar . . .” discussion

“ No. It is not wise. You have to throw all your eggs into one basket for love to work at all. Relationships are inherently riskier than careers. You can't use the same rules. You might lose ... ” –  harnomygirl

Join the “Becoming Exclusive” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:35am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0