View Full Version : House Approves Bill Restricting Credit Card Industry, Allowing Guns in Parks
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/20/credit-card-forces-dems-vote-gun-rights/?test=latestnews
The House joined the Senate Wednesday in voting for sweeping restrictions on the credit card industry, approving an off-topic amendment along the way to allow loaded guns in parks.
By a vote of 361-64, the House approved the credit card overhaul measures. Those measures would enact new restrictions on the industry, including a requirement that customers penalized by higher interest rates because they missed a payment are given a chance to reclaim their lower rate after six months.
But the House also approved an amendment, stuck in the Senate version by conservative Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., that would restore Bush administration policy allowing loaded guns in national parks.
The Senate bill put House Democrats in a tough spot, since they were effectively forced to take a vote against gun control Wednesday in order to avoid kicking the bill back to the other chamber. (The House and Senate must approve the same bill.)
House Democrats, though, engineered a delicate legislative maneuver to extend anti-gun Democrats a chance to go on record against the amendment without torpedoing the overall bill. They did this by holding two votes: one for the credit card end of things, one for the firearms portion. This gave anti-gun members political cover by allowing them to vote against the guns amendment and then for the credit card bill.
But since the gun amendment passed, it nevertheless gets attached to the main bill and becomes law if President Obama signs it.
Awesome tactic by slipping it in with the credit card bill.
Awesome tactic by slipping it in with the credit card bill.
Let's not forget that can become a 2-way street.
.
Let's not forget that can become a 2-way street.
.
Totally understood, I'm sure the dems have done it to the GOP before and will do it again.
Let's not forget that can become a 2-way street.
.
Exactly. It's bullshit both ways in my opinion. I'd like to see it end.
exkc135driver
05-20-09, 23:23
Controls on rapacious credit-card companies (yes, I know, that's redundant) and allowing firearms in national parks? What's not to like??
Controls on rapacious credit-card companies (yes, I know, that's redundant) and allowing firearms in national parks? What's not to like??
I'm glad the park carry amendment got passed, but the credit card bill is a crock. It's nothing more than beating up on banks and responsible people who pay their bills on time in order to make a populist appeal to people who get charged fees and high interest rates because they are deadbeats.
I also agree that the "unrelated amendment" tactic can easily be used against us. Imagine if somebody managed to attach a new AW ban to whatever the next over-hyped, "must pass" piece of "bailout" legislation turns out to be.
Littlelebowski
05-21-09, 12:52
When is Obama supposed to sign or not sign this?
LittleRedToyota
05-21-09, 12:54
What's not to like??
perhap the federal government unconstitutionally meddling with private contracts?
perhap the federal government unconstitutionally meddling with private contracts?
Bingo. Look for more unintended consequences due to government meddling in the future.
Let's not forget that can become a 2-way street.
.
It already has been. This has long been an anti way of getting things passed
I'm glad the park carry amendment got passed, but the credit card bill is a crock. It's nothing more than beating up on banks and responsible people who pay their bills on time in order to make a populist appeal to people who get charged fees and high interest rates because they are deadbeats.
I am not saying I support the govt meddling in such things but the above is a crock o' feces
It is not just deadbeats that get stuck with this crap from the CC companies. My wife, who has never been late on any account, is not behind, pays her bills on time, and pays way more than the min, just had an interest rate get jacked up from 12.xx to 19.xx%. We still don't know why. She also had a perfectly good card cancelled out from under her. The reason for that (and most likely the interest rate hike) was a "bad" debt to credit ratio. But that is because, due to growth of eguns.com we have been using 2 of her cards to purchase inventory. So we pump thousands of dollars through the 2 cards every month and also pay thousands of dollars every month. Due to Shenanigans by the CC companies who have been lowering credit limits across the board whenever you make a big payment we have been holding the balance high since they do not cut the limits below the balance. So we pay everything we push through every month but have an original balance we leave to avoid getting it cut (multiple banks have done that to us in the last 8 months and I have talked to many others who have had it happen). So we have a false metric that got used to whack us when we are not deadbeats, we push thousands of dollars a month through (which we pay), are never late, etc.
So it is not just deadbeats. The CC companies screw everyone. I am not saying I support the meddling but that is why this is supported by most average citizens. Even the good guys get whacked by the banks.
I agree 100%. American Express arbitrarily lowered the limit on both of my cards by several thousands of dollars with no explanation at all. My income hasn't changed, I pay my bills on time and my credit is good.
I am not saying I support the govt meddling in such things but the above is a crock o' feces
It is not just deadbeats that get stuck with this crap from the CC companies. My wife, who has never been late on any account, is not behind, pays her bills on time, and pays way more than the min, just had an interest rate get jacked up from 12.xx to 19.xx%. We still don't know why. She also had a perfectly good card cancelled out from under her. The reason for that (and most likely the interest rate hike) was a "bad" debt to credit ratio. But that is because, due to growth of eguns.com we have been using 2 of her cards to purchase inventory. So we pump thousands of dollars through the 2 cards every month and also pay thousands of dollars every month. Due to Shenanigans by the CC companies who have been lowering credit limits across the board whenever you make a big payment we have been holding the balance high since they do not cut the limits below the balance. So we pay everything we push through every month but have an original balance we leave to avoid getting it cut (multiple banks have done that to us in the last 8 months and I have talked to many others who have had it happen). So we have a false metric that got used to whack us when we are not deadbeats, we push thousands of dollars a month through (which we pay), are ever late, etc.
So it is not just deadbeats. The CC companies screw everyone. I am not saying I support the meddling but that is why this is supported by most average citizens. Even the good guys get whacked by the banks.
I'm glad the park carry amendment got passed, but the credit card bill is a crock. It's nothing more than beating up on banks and responsible people who pay their bills on time in order to make a populist appeal to people who get charged fees and high interest rates because they are deadbeats.
I also agree that the "unrelated amendment" tactic can easily be used against us. Imagine if somebody managed to attach a new AW ban to whatever the next over-hyped, "must pass" piece of "bailout" legislation turns out to be.
E-GunsREPLY "the above is a crock of feces"
Sorry E-guns, but I believe you are flat WRONG on this issue. I am surprised that any Liberty-loving member of M4.com would support the socialist, anti-credit card company aspects of this bill. The only conclusion I can come up with is that the supporters of the credit-card portion of the bill simply do not understand basic economics.
Here is a portion of an article from the liberal Washington Post (even they understand the issue) which might help you understand the evil implications of regulation by the new administration:
"This bill fundamentally changes the entire business model of credit cards by restricting the ability to price credit for risk," said Edward L. Yingling, the chief executive of the American Bankers Association. He said that lending would become more risky and that, It is a fundamental rule of lending that an increase in 'risk means that less credit will be available and that the credit that is available will often have a higher interest rate.'
Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, an industry group, said available credit could be reduced by as much as $2 billion. Those with the weakest credit histories would be hardest hit.
When credit cards were introduced about 50 years ago, issuers practiced a one-size-fits-all approach of charging an annual fee and roughly the same interest rate of about 18 percent to everyone. As the industry became more deregulated in the 1980s, around the time that credit scores were introduced, issuers were able to separate the risky from the not-so-risky borrower and tailor the terms of card contracts.
The money they made from customers who did not pay their bills in full each month became an important revenue source. The industry makes $15 billion annually from penalty fees, and one-fifth of consumers carrying credit card debt pay an interest rate above 20 percent, according to figures cited by the White House and compiled from the Government Accountability Office and the Federal Reserve.
To make up for the lost revenue, card issuers will turn to those customers who pay what they owe in full and on time every month, analysts said. Gone will be the days when creditworthy customers enjoyed the benefits of low interest rates and cards that offer rewards such as frequent flier miles and cash back, they said. Annual fees, which had been banished to cards with rewards programs, are likely to return. Offers for zero percent balance transfers are likely to become more rare.
"This industry will start looking more like a one-size-fits-all pricing approach which dominated in the '80s -- 18 percent interest and $20 annual fees," said David Robertson, publisher of the Nilson Report, which covers the industry. Customers who pay in full each month will have "to start picking up the slack, to start pulling their weight."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/19/AR2009051901867.html
Just like Joe the Plumber - who had the nerve to work hard enough to make over $250K/yr and was asked to pay more $$ to be given to people who DO NOT earn as much, the new rules will have ONE result:
-The responsible card holders pay MORE to make up for the dead-beats and late-payers. If you are opposed to these rates, then don't use a C.C. I don't. I use a debit card. If I can't afford it, I do not buy it. Period.
Doesn't this bill, and the article above, sound a lot like the Mortgage swindle? The costs to the system from defaulters are paid for by those of us who pay on time. That is EXACTLY what is happening with credit cards.
You, who defend these types of laws, need to think long and hard about what you really believe and who you support.
"
Controls on rapacious credit-card companies (yes, I know, that's redundant) and allowing firearms in national parks? What's not to like??
How about the very real possibility that the CC companies will likely raise rates and / or add fees to even those with excellent credit to recoup their "losses"?:mad:
It is not just deadbeats that get stuck with this crap from the CC companies. My wife, who has never been late on any account, is not behind, pays her bills on time, and pays way more than the min, just had an interest rate get jacked up from 12.xx to 19.xx%. We still don't know why. She also had a perfectly good card cancelled out from under her. The reason for that (and most likely the interest rate hike) was a "bad" debt to credit ratio. But that is because, due to growth of eguns.com we have been using 2 of her cards to purchase inventory.
So naturally we should pass a law that affects hundreds of millions of people because of your personal situation, in which your wife became an objectively higher credit risk due to her much higher than usual credit utilization ratio?
The card companies' reaction to your situation is normal. They see you racking up more than usual, running into higher than usual utilization (debt to available credit ratio) and they understandably think that something is going on that makes her a riskier borrower. Has she called any of them to try to change any of this?
This is no different than car insurance companies increasing your premiums because you got a couple tickets, even though you haven't been in an accident or made any claims. You're a statistically higher risk for them. If they don't do that, then everyone else has to pay more to make up for that risk.
I agree 100%. American Express arbitrarily lowered the limit on both of my cards by several thousands of dollars with no explanation at all. My income hasn't changed, I pay my bills on time and my credit is good.
How do you know they did this "arbitrarily?" Did they tell you that? Have you asked for an explanation?
Sorry E-guns, but I believe you are flat WRONG on this issue.
No its not. You did not read my writing. I never once said I supported it. I explained how the excuse that it was bailing out the deadbeats was wrong and how the CC are abusive and that is why most people support this. I never said I supported it.
However, I did notice that the stuff you quoted seems to be from the banking industry. They will find that if they start to go back to high interest rates and yearly fees for everyone the usage of their product will go down or go to those who resist the temptation.
I have not read the bill but from descriptions I have read it does not prevent the pricing for risk. It regulates it so that interest rates on already given credit cannot be changed -- they can still raise the interest rates on new uses of an account for example.
It reigns in the abusive stuff from descriptions I have read. Of course the bankers are going to forecast doom and gloom as this cuts into their easy profits from abusing customers.
I do not support govt intrusion. So out of principle I don't support this.
However, don't think that there is no abuse by the CC companies and that all these bankers are freedom loving constitution believing people. Their being against this is not out of any freedom standpoint -- it is from the standpoint of their greed and trying to raise easy profits for not doing anything -- fees for no service provided which is what most of these fees are.
I have not read the bill but from descriptions I have read it does not prevent the pricing for risk. It regulates it so that interest rates on already given credit cannot be changed -- they can still raise the interest rates on new uses of an account for example.
So what happens when a cardholder who used to be a good credit risk slips into being a bad one? Should the not be allowed to raise the rate to account for that?
In any case, I believe the bill does allow interest rate increases, but requires XX days of notice before they go into effect.
So naturally we should pass a law that affects hundreds of millions of people because of your personal situation, in which your wife became an objectively higher credit risk due to her much higher than usual credit utilization ratio?
several points you have wrong.
1) I did not call for legislation. I pointed out that this was not the rest of us bailing out the deadbeats
2) my wife is not OBJECTIVELY a higher credit risk. Their algorithms are faulty because the things they measure do not measure credit risk in many scenarios -- the algorithms only apply to a certain segment but are applied to all.
The card companies' reaction to your situation is normal. They see you racking up more than usual, running into higher than usual utilization (debt to available credit ratio)
no, actually it is not. For one we have been doing this for a long time and they were perfectly happy with it. It has been way over a year. This was not a sudden thing. It is not a higher than usual occurrence. And it does not take into account that we pay a very high percentage off each month and then reuse it. The ratio is meaningless in that case. They use a very small number of metrics which do not take into account real life usage etc to make these decisions. They are slaves to some algorithm that has no real meaning since the data inputs are very small.
Also, what good is a credit limit? If they penalize you for using the credit they should not give it in the first place.
and they understandably think that something is going on that makes her a riskier borrower. Has she called any of them to try to change any of this?
yes. The people there just say that the computer audit flagged it and they cannot do anything about it. Once again the joys of doing business with large faceless institutions where no one has any authority to do anything and it is all run by a computer. The people who work there could not think themselves out of a box.
This is no different than car insurance companies increasing your premiums because you got a couple tickets, even though you haven't been in an accident or made any claims. You're a statistically higher risk for them. If they don't do that, then everyone else has to pay more to make up for that risk.
Actually you are not statistically a higher risk to them. I believe that is also a faulty premise. I have looked but not found any data to support that a single ticket unrelated to an accident makes you any more likely to have an accident than someone without a ticket.
How do you know they did this "arbitrarily?" Did they tell you that? Have you asked for an explanation?
Same thing happened to me with AMEX and I did call them and ask and the talking heads (I was transferred around to a few depts) had basically no answer.
So what happens when a cardholder who used to be a good credit risk slips into being a bad one? Should the not be allowed to raise the rate to account for that?
Actually no, I don't believe they should. If they extended credit at x% they should not be able to change that on the already given credit afterwards (meaning already used credit -- not the existence of a card account only originally opened at x%). Extending of new credit (new usage of the card account) should be able to have a changed percentage of interested charged when pre-notification is given.
Extending of credit is like a contract and should be honored.
In any case, I believe the bill does allow interest rate increases, but requires XX days of notice before they go into effect.
2) my wife is not OBJECTIVELY a higher credit risk.
Yes, she is. Both her utilization patterns and the total debt were flagged for a reason.
Their algorithms are faulty
No, they're not.
They are slaves to some algorithm that has no real meaning since the data inputs are very small.
The data inputs are nowhere close to "small." There are many variables they use and they have literally millions of pieces of data. The fact that you don't like it or don't think it applies to your situation does not make it faulty.
Once again the joys of doing business with large faceless institutions where no one has any authority to do anything and it is all run by a computer. The people who work there could not think themselves out of a box.
Then do business with local banks and their credit lines.
Actually you are not statistically a higher risk to them. I believe that is also a faulty premise. I have looked but not found any data to support that a single ticket unrelated to an accident makes you any more likely to have an accident than someone without a ticket.
The NHTSA has data and studies that demonstrate higher accident rates for people who have gotten tickets. It's not really debatable.
The data inputs are nowhere close to "small." There are many variables they use and they have literally millions of pieces of data. The fact that you don't like it or don't think it applies to your situation does not make it faulty.
[/quote]
yes they are. The algorithms are faulty. With the number of good credit people who are affected by these decisions when nothing has changed on the card holders side it is clear that the algorithms are faulty.
You can protest all you want but they use very small amount of data. I talked with someone in the banks's lending dept for quite a long time about the wife's account and the information they used was basically from the credit reporting agencies and a small amount of the payment history of this account only. The amount of info on a credit report about an account is very small and full of holes (like complete payment history -- for example, if I use and fully pay an account every month but pay it several times, like weekly, it will show a large balance every month and a small payment as usually only the first or last payment is listed -- bank A has no clue except the few tidbits of info from the credit report about an account at bank B but they draw lots of conclusions about the account at bank B with very little data input)
Then do business with local banks and their credit lines.
The NHTSA has data and studies that demonstrate higher accident rates for people who have gotten tickets. It's not really debatable.
Do those data and studies show non-accident tickets or lump all tickets in to one group? The data that I was able to see lumped all tickets into one group. Not a valid set of data if you lump it all together.
You can protest all you want but they use very small amount of data. I talked with someone in the banks's lending dept for quite a long time about the wife's account and the information they used was basically from the credit reporting agencies and a small amount of the payment history of this account only. The amount of info on a credit report about an account is very small and full of holes (like complete payment history -- for example, if I use and fully pay an account every month but pay it several times, like weekly, it will show a large balance every month and a small payment as usually only the first or last payment is listed -- bank A has no clue except the few tidbits of info from the credit report about an account at bank B but they draw lots of conclusions about the account at bank B with very little data input)
It's not just your information they're looking at. They're looking at patterns and comparing it to millions of other accounts and what happened to those accounts based on movements within them. It is more complex than you're suggesting.
You may not think it's "fair" but it's not something they pull out of thin air.
It's not just your information they're looking at. They're looking at patterns and comparing it to millions of other accounts and what happened to those accounts based on movements within them. It is more complex than you're suggesting.
You may not think it's "fair" but it's not something they pull out of thin air.
I did not say it was pulled out of thin air. I said it was faulty. They can have all the data they want (but they use very little data) and if the way they process that data is faulty then the output is faulty.
Also, they may develop models based on all your other data but they do not process that data each time so in effect they are not looking at all that data to make this decision.
I did not say it was pulled out of thin air. I said it was faulty. They can have all the data they want (but they use very little data) and if the way they process that data is faulty then the output is faulty.
Also, they may develop models based on all your other data but they do not process that data each time so in effect they are not looking at all that data to make this decision.
So basically you're saying that it's "faulty" if they:
1. Have a prior utilization history on your wife, then they see a change in her utilization pattern including more use and a higher debt-to-available credit ratio.
2. Have a huge pile of data that says these changes in utilization makes it X amount more likely that she will default, miss a payment, go into bankruptcy, etc. based on similar changes in patterns in hundreds of thousands of other accounts.
3. They raise her rate or lower her limit to mitigate that risk.
Sorry, I don't see why that is "faulty" in any sense of the word.
idreamt...
05-21-09, 16:38
Georgia has the best gun laws. I can ride public transit or enjoy a 5 star restaurant with a black powder rifle (or any gun for that matter) without a permit as long as it's not concealed.
So basically you're saying that it's "faulty" if they:
1. Have a prior utilization history on your wife, then they see a change in her utilization pattern including more use and a higher debt-to-available credit ratio.
Maybe you missed it where I said that the "change" in utilization was well over a year ago and nothing in utilization or ratios has changed in recent months or at least a year. In fact payment history has gotten better recently. Their data inputs were very small and based on bad data since they do not have more than a few data points for accounts at other institutions and the reported data does not at all make for any valid conclusions. (I explained this earlier with examples)
2. Have a huge pile of data that says these changes in utilization makes it X amount more likely that she will default, miss a payment, go into bankruptcy, etc. based on similar changes in patterns in hundreds of thousands of other accounts.
Their data may or may not show it. It all depends on how much data they have of each of those other thousands or hundred of thousands and what factors there are. You lump too many dissimilar people into a group and then try and draw conclusions -- yes that is faulty.
3. They raise her rate or lower her limit to mitigate that risk.
Sorry, I don't see why that is "faulty" in any sense of the word.
In this case they just cancelled the card despite a stellar record and no negative changes to her credit history / record. Yes that is faulty.
Well as a matter of fact I did. And not only did it happen to me, but several other AMEX users that I know. The excuse they gave me was crap. I have good credit, I have double digit thousands in my checking account and my employment and income has stayed the same.
How do you know they did this "arbitrarily?" Did they tell you that? Have you asked for an explanation?
idreamt...
05-21-09, 17:04
Well as a matter of fact I did. And not only did it happen to me, but several other AMEX users that I know. The excuse they gave me was crap. I have good credit, I have double digit thousands in my checking account and my employment and income has stayed the same.
Could I please have your SSN#, city of birth, and the name of your first pet?
I keed.
Hugh Jorgan
LA, CA
512-08-5320
Taco the Chihuahua
Could I please have your SSN#, city of birth, and the name of your first pet?
I keed.
idreamt...
05-21-09, 17:19
Yo Quiero.
Do those data and studies show non-accident tickets or lump all tickets in to one group? The data that I was able to see lumped all tickets into one group. Not a valid set of data if you lump it all together.
If their models are anything like the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's, then basically they take all the tickets like you said from safety violations, speeding, paperwork (drivers not having medical cards, registration etc) and give you a score.
The higher the score, the worse your rating. And once your rating gets up to say 115, they know that you're XX% more likely to be in a significant accident, possibly resulting in a loss of life, than if your score was 75.
I realize you're talkin about Ms Smith in her Civic, and I'm talkin about Trucker Dan in his Peterbilt. But it wouldn't shock me one bit if this model hasn't been adopted or adjusted by the insurance companies to suit their needs.
Well as a matter of fact I did. And not only did it happen to me, but several other AMEX users that I know. The excuse they gave me was crap. I have good credit, I have double digit thousands in my checking account and my employment and income has stayed the same.
So, what was their "excuse" and why was it "crap?"
Since you are arguing for the sake argument I'm done with explaining my financial situation to you.
So, what was their "excuse" and why was it "crap?"
Since you are arguing for the sake argument I'm done with explaining my financial situation to you.
I guess we'll just take your word for it that it was an "crap excuse" and not a valid reason that was allowed under your credit card agreement...
OK, back on track.... I don't care about credit cards....
When will the CC issue be signed by the pres to allow me to CC LEGALLY (Cause I do anyways!) in the state parks?
Likely to be signed today (probably with snide protest remarks about the right-to-carry part made by our Teleprompter-in-Chief or his loose-lipped side-kick. Now we see how much he REALLY supports the "bear arms" portion of the 2nd Amendment he pretended to back in the election).
Goes into effect in 9 or 10 months (or sooner - read on):
See OP's post from VCDL - there could a new challenge in court to the current injunction put in place against the regulation by an activist liberal D.C. judge - who cited "environmental impact" as one central reason for blocking the regulation.
Argument would be: this legislation has been signed. It is law. Therefore, it should nullify the injunction against the identical regulation (laws passed by congress do not require environmental impact studies).
OK, back on track.... I don't care about credit cards....
When will the CC issue be signed by the pres to allow me to CC LEGALLY (Cause I do anyways!) in the state parks?
Likely to be signed today (probably with snide protest remarks about the right-to-carry part made by our Teleprompter-in-Chief or his loose-lipped side-kick. Now we see how much he REALLY supports the "bear arms" portion of the 2nd Amendment he pretended to back in the election).
Goes into effect in 9 or 10 months (or sooner - read on):
See OP's post from VCDL - there could a new challenge in court to the current injunction put in place against the regulation by an activist liberal D.C. judge - who cited "environmental impact" as one central reason for blocking the regulation.
Argument would be: this legislation has been signed. It is law. Therefore, it should nullify the injunction against the identical regulation (laws passed by congress do not require environmental impact studies).
So it wont be this summer anyways. My son, me and my brother in law are going kayaking this weekend and packing tants and food/clothes in dry-bags and we will be in state park land/water. I hate the idea of getting caught carrying my pistol, but damn if I am going to live in the water and woods for 3 days and not have at least my Glock. Hell, I would honestly love to fasten one of my M4's on the inside of the kayak. I do not see any good reason why we should not have the ability to carry in a park. I understand that they don't want guys with AK's and M4's thrown over thier shoulders walking the trails, but you can be discreet and still carry a big stick :D
Unfortunately, I do not have a piece of paper and crayons to draw you a picture. There was no change in my credit, never been late on payments, my employment and overall situation has remained the same. In addition I know at least 5 people in almost similar circumstances that had their limits drastically reduced for no REAL or DOCUMENTABLE reason.
I guess we'll just take your word for it that it was an "crap excuse" and not a valid reason that was allowed under your credit card agreement...
Nathan_Bell
05-22-09, 08:57
Unfortunately, I do not have a piece of paper and crayons to draw you a picture. There was no change in my credit, never been late on payments, my employment and overall situation has remained the same. In addition I know at least 5 people in almost similar circumstances that had their limits drastically reduced for no REAL or DOCUMENTABLE reason.
Had a MC account do this as well. Made me laugh, they sent me a letter stating in effect; that as I had never used all of that credit, it was a danger to me to have that much available and they were doing me a favor by chopping it in half. :rolleyes:
Citigroup card
Unfortunately, I do not have a piece of paper and crayons to draw you a picture. There was no change in my credit, never been late on payments, my employment and overall situation has remained the same. In addition I know at least 5 people in almost similar circumstances that had their limits drastically reduced for no REAL or DOCUMENTABLE reason.
So once again, you've pointed out lots of things that you don't think changed, but you still haven't told us 1. what reason you were given; 2. why it was "crap" and why it wasn't allowed under your credit card agreement.
If your credit and employment are as strong and stable as you claim, why don't you go open an account somewhere else and close the Amex account that you think screwed you? These accounts are a two way street. They can change things, and you can pay it off and walk anytime.
Had a MC account do this as well. Made me laugh, they sent me a letter stating in effect; that as I had never used all of that credit, it was a danger to me to have that much available and they were doing me a favor by chopping it in half. :rolleyes:
Citigroup card
Then tell them they're right, you don't need it - then go open another account with terms you like and close the one that got lowered.
Some of you are speaking as though they have a gun to your head and you can't escape the card agreement. Just cancel it and make sure you replace that available credit with something you like better (so your credit score doesn't suffer).
Disagree. Banks have been fleecing customers out of money with various fees and random interest rate hikes that amount to millions if not billions of extra dough in their pockets at the expense of responsible and irresponsible customers for decades. The idea that responsible customers can simply walk away from these cards if they don't like the terms isn't exactly as clear cut as it may seem either. You risk more damage to your credit score - yet another bullshit tactic employed by these companies - if you close out an account. You're almost better off carrying a balance in most cases. I have two credit cards, don't carry a balance and have credit scores of 802, 790, and 812 with the three reporting companies. A year ago, with scores roughly the same, I watched my scores plummet into the mid 700's because I closed an account due to an interest rate hike I didn't agree with. This has very little to do with private contracts and more to do with bullshit practices and the Constitution has nothing to do with thieving banks.
Back to our scheduled discussion....Here's hoping the temporary injunction is lifted now that the signing of this law will make that issue moot. Otherwise, it's a 9-month wait.
perhap the federal government unconstitutionally meddling with private contracts?
Disagree. Banks have been fleecing customers out of money with various fees and random interest rate hikes that amount to millions if not billions of extra dough in their pockets at the expense of responsible and irresponsible customers for decades. The idea that responsible customers can simply walk away from these cards if they don't like the terms isn't exactly as clear cut as it may seem either.
You can walk away, and you can preserve your credit rating by opening a new line of credit to replace the old one so that your total available credit remains stable. I've done it before. I also ended a relationship with a bank some years ago because of the monthly fees that they started charging, and told the branch manager that the fees were the reason I was leaving.
exkc135driver
05-22-09, 10:27
Unfortunately, I do not have a piece of paper and crayons to draw you a picture. There was no change in my credit, never been late on payments, my employment and overall situation has remained the same. In addition I know at least 5 people in almost similar circumstances that had their limits drastically reduced for no REAL or DOCUMENTABLE reason.
So once again, you've pointed out lots of things that you don't think changed, but you still haven't told us 1. what reason you were given; 2. why it was "crap" and why it wasn't allowed under your credit card agreement.
Why would someone disclose personal financial information on a public forum to answer a question posed by an unknown person which would then be read by no-telling-who? I damn sure wouldn’t!!
Why would someone disclose personal financial information on a public forum to answer a question posed by an unknown person which would then be read by no-telling-who? I damn sure wouldn’t!!
Neither would I. Of course, I also wouldn't open a conversation about whether it was "right," point out all the things I had done "right," flippantly tell another party that I couldn't explain because I didn't have a crayon, and then refuse to offer the card-issuer's version.
It's sort of like bitching about any other product or customer service and then only giving your side of it, and hiding the other party's explanation.
I guess we'll just take your word for it that it was an "crap excuse" and not a valid reason that was allowed under your credit card agreement...
What makes you think that that is mutually exclusive? The agreements allow basically anything and of course the reason they give, whether it is supported or not by the data and circumstances, will be allowed under the ever changing agreement.
LittleRedToyota
05-22-09, 13:08
OK, back on track.... I don't care about credit cards....
When will the CC issue be signed by the pres to allow me to CC LEGALLY (Cause I do anyways!) in the state parks?
just fyi, you can already legally CC in *state* parks in PA if you have an LTCF...
the issue in this bill is *national* parks.
Who cares? I didn't give away anything "Top Secret".
Why would someone disclose personal financial information on a public forum to answer a question posed by an unknown person which would then be read by no-telling-who? I damn sure wouldn’t!!
LittleRedToyota
05-22-09, 13:15
Disagree. Banks have been fleecing customers out of money with various fees and random interest rate hikes that amount to millions if not billions of extra dough in their pockets at the expense of responsible and irresponsible customers for decades. The idea that responsible customers can simply walk away from these cards if they don't like the terms isn't exactly as clear cut as it may seem either. You risk more damage to your credit score - yet another bullshit tactic employed by these companies - if you close out an account. You're almost better off carrying a balance in most cases. I have two credit cards, don't carry a balance and have credit scores of 802, 790, and 812 with the three reporting companies. A year ago, with scores roughly the same, I watched my scores plummet into the mid 700's because I closed an account due to an interest rate hike I didn't agree with. This has very little to do with private contracts and more to do with bullshit practices and the Constitution has nothing to do with thieving banks.
this has everything to do with private contracts.
no one forced anyone to get a credit card or deal with a bank. in reality, everyone is perfectly free to say "no" to every single credit card offer they get. they are also free to say "no" to dealing with banks.
by getting a credit card or opening a bank account, you are *voluntarily* entering into a binding contract. some of the terms of that contract are based on your credit score.
if you do not like the terms of the contract or the potential ramifications of entering into it, you should not have entered into it.
further, you do not have any right to any particular credit score or to have your credit score calculated in any particular way.
whether credit scores or the actions of credit card companies make any sense or not is completely irrelevant. private entities are free to be as irrational as they want to be...and that is how it should be.
exkc135driver
05-22-09, 13:28
Who cares? I didn't give away anything "Top Secret".
I know. But my point was, why would you (or anyone) respond to the inquiries, the response to which would be such information? And the answer is ... you wouldn't.
just fyi, you can already legally CC in *state* parks in PA if you have an LTCF...
the issue in this bill is *national* parks.
I am not PA resident, so I'd check first, but if you are going to a PA state park like you said, then LittleRedToyota's advice might just save you from breaking the law. Does any part of the river go through a National Park?
That is the only change here folks: NATIONAL parks.
I agree 100%. American Express arbitrarily lowered the limit on both of my cards by several thousands of dollars with no explanation at all. My income hasn't changed, I pay my bills on time and my credit is good.
This happened to me last week, I closed my card before I was hit with another $500 annual fee for a card that was no longer of any use to me. I saw the same thing happen with my one of chase cards this week.
Not sure what is going on, but its really pissing me off. Any and every card that does this to me is getting closed. I may end up with a debit card only before long!
exkc135driver
05-22-09, 14:35
I may end up with a debit card only before long!
I hear you loud and clear. But the problem with debit cards is, once you use it to buy something, that vendor has your money. If you have a problem with the stuff you bought, you have options with a credit card that you don't have with a debit card. If the vendor is a stand-up company like G&R or BCM, it probably won't matter. But if it's a company like Botach, well ... good luck.
So once again, you've pointed out lots of things that you don't think changed, but you still haven't told us 1. what reason you were given; 2. why it was "crap" and why it wasn't allowed under your credit card agreement.
If your credit and employment are as strong and stable as you claim, why don't you go open an account somewhere else and close the Amex account that you think screwed you? These accounts are a two way street. They can change things, and you can pay it off and walk anytime.
You have a a confrontational tone in your postings dbrowne
Why would Iraqgunz or anyone else for that matter want to go out and litter their credit with inquiries? Why should he or I have to do that? We entered into an agreement in good faith and it was not honored. I was working on black card status when they capped me.
I'll give you more details so you can cast aspersions towards me as well.
I've NEVER been late
My total available revolving credit is only 25% of my salary
My total debt less than 20% of my salary
My assets exceed my liabilities substantially
I've had an Amex since 2005 with an established spending pattern/history.
When I called them to cancel, the person did not know why I was limited other than to say they are systematically reviewing all their accounts and building a stronger portfolio.
I think they are trying to get rid of any risk in their portfolio. If I had been a client for 20 years I doubt they would have done this. I was not willing to pay the annual fee for the Platinum card when my no pre-set spending limit was gone.
I travel Internationally extensively so this is a huge pain in my ass to have to deal with. I'm glad I have other cards, but I had always liked dealing with Amex up to this point. They process payments almost the same day. They are absolutely tenacious with fraud and overcharges, and their concierge service was actually useful.
Not having this card in my credit portfolio frustrates me. I have worked hard for many years to build not only a good credit profile, but a strong credit profile. With the way the economy is going, that no longer seems to matter.
Derek_Connor
05-22-09, 15:53
So to summarize this thread...
1.) "no, my penis is bigger than yours"
2.) Credit cards are bad, cut them up, use cash
3.) We are waiting on Obama to sign this into law, but it will still be 8-9months?
So to summarize this thread...
1.) "no, my penis is bigger than yours"
2.) Credit cards are bad, cut them up, use cash
3.) We are waiting on Obama to sign this into law, but it will still be 8-9months?
Still need to use credit, wish that wasn't the case. As exkc135driver noted earlier, debit cards have other risks/problems associated.
From what I understand, even if Obama signs the bill, it may be a full year before its enacted. Plenty of time for the companies to hike rates, drop limits, eliminate perks, and draw down their user base.
I suggest making a spreadsheet right now and tracking the changes.
I'm expecting a wholesale credit slaughter given the current trend.
I am hoping that that my USAA cards do not malfunction. If any company is going to not screw with me, I'm anticipating it will be USAA.
This new credit re-evaluation/regulation period is also going to push many people from the larger banking institutions towards local credit unions. I am considering doing this when I go home on leave in June. I'm sure there is a small town local bank/cu that would love to have my business.
We entered into an agreement in good faith and it was not honored.
What part of the agreement did they breach? I'm not being "confrontational," I'm asking you and others to prove your sweeping statements. Nobody has been able to do it yet. You're shitting on companies for doing something "wrong" or "not honoring the agreement" but nobody will say what term of their agreement was breached or what reason they were given for the action by the card issuer. That speaks volumes.
My total available revolving credit is only 25% of my salary
My total debt less than 20% of my salary
My assets exceed my liabilities substantially
Those aren't even factors that they look at, or could look at. Your card issuers don't know your current salary, only what you put on the initial application. They also don't know your total assets.
This new credit re-evaluation/regulation period is also going to push many people from the larger banking institutions towards local credit unions. I am considering doing this when I go home on leave in June. I'm sure there is a small town local bank/cu that would love to have my business.
Make sure that it really is a small local CU. My CU has gotten too big for its britches and things it is a big bank in all but name only. Tons of new fees. Crappy CS. Etc.
What part of the agreement did they breach? I'm not being "confrontational," I'm asking you and others to prove your sweeping statements. Nobody has been able to do it yet. You're shitting on companies for doing something "wrong" or "not honoring the agreement" but nobody will say what term of their agreement was breached or what reason they were given for the action by the card issuer. That speaks volumes.
The reason they give is immaterial as they make up a reason to fit whatever goal they have. The reason does not have to be true or supported by any data or facts but in your eyes that is OK as they met their (ever changing not what I signed) agreement.
Nathan_Bell
05-22-09, 16:22
this has everything to do with private contracts.
no one forced anyone to get a credit card or deal with a bank. in reality, everyone is perfectly free to say "no" to every single credit card offer they get. they are also free to say "no" to dealing with banks.
Go rent a car, get a hotel room, a plane ticket, an Internet account, a car insurance policy, or a job using this approach.
The reason they give is immaterial as they make up a reason to fit whatever goal they have. The reason does not have to be true or supported by any data or facts but in your eyes that is OK as they met their (ever changing not what I signed) agreement.
How is that any different from a normal job, which is "employment at will?" You can be terminated at any time for any reason or no reason. You can also quit at any time for any reason or no reason. Pretty common arrangement. So yes, it's "OK" with me.
How is that any different from a normal job, which is "employment at will?" You can be terminated at any time for any reason or no reason. You can also quit at any time for any reason or no reason. Pretty common arrangement. So yes, it's "OK" with me.
Actually, there are differences. Even "at will" employment cannot be terminated willy-nilly. There are certain laws on discrimination that pre-empt it.
In addition, if you are terminated, they still have to honor obligations and commitments that stem from before the termination. They cannot say after the fact that they won't pay you your last paycheck or only pay you $10 / hour for the last paycheck when you had an employment contract at $20 / hour. etc.
There are other differences as well that shoot your example down.
What part of the agreement did they breach? I'm not being "confrontational," I'm asking you and others to prove your sweeping statements. Nobody has been able to do it yet. You're shitting on companies for doing something "wrong" or "not honoring the agreement" but nobody will say what term of their agreement was breached or what reason they were given for the action by the card issuer. That speaks volumes.
Actually, you are fighting the wrong battle. No one said the card companies, in general, have illegally been broaching their agreements. We said they have been playing not fair, wrong, sneaky, unethical, or whatever word you want to use. Abusing their customers and customer-relationships. Your question is irrelevant to that accusation. You are setting up a strawman argument in effect.
What part of the agreement did they breach? I'm not being "confrontational," I'm asking you and others to prove your sweeping statements. Nobody has been able to do it yet. You're shitting on companies for doing something "wrong" or "not honoring the agreement" but nobody will say what term of their agreement was breached or what reason they were given for the action by the card issuer. That speaks volumes.
Those aren't even factors that they look at, or could look at. Your card issuers don't know your current salary, only what you put on the initial application. They also don't know your total assets.
When I applied for the card in 2005, I applied and received the Amex platinum, no-preset spending limit charge card. For nearly the last 5 years, I've used the card every month, paid the card off completely before the due date and was generally extremely happy with the card.
The entire point of the Amex card for me was the no-preset-spending limit. After you develop a pattern, there is a "soft" limit but for the most part, I never had an issue. I've had over 15K charged in hotels, airfaire, car rentals several times as well as having made myriad other large purchases. Up until now, it was the very first card I reached for in almost all my transactions.
For me, the "breach" is going from a card that has functioned well for me to a card that would not meet my needs. Hell, with the limitations they imposed I'd have trouble buying my airfaire with it.
If I had been late-pay, slow-pay, or a problem customer I could understand thier response.
Also note, I was not notified in writing in advance, there was no warning of the change to my account.
Chase did the same thing, no warning, no notice--just a drop in the credit ceiling.
The part that frustrates me the most is that Chase card has a reported "credit limit" which supports me using cards like the amex or my other visa signature cards which unfortunately do not show a "limit". This means that even though the cards have no limit or very high limits--they report as a high credit limit of zero.
When I use an amex or visa signature, I have to pay the card off as fast as possible to avoid the balance going to statement. Once a statement comes out with the balance, it has an immediate effect on my credit utilization profile and score.
Having several cards that report a high limit allows me to keep my utilization under 30% even in the cases where I might be on the road for weeks. Now that I'm starting to see these accounts trend down in terms of limits--I'm going to have to be extremely careful of what card I use and when to avoid the balance going to statement.
With Amex, the payments would process the same day so I'd never have a balance for more than a few days and could get rid of it quickly. In the case of some of the other cards, they tend to apply payments 3 and as many as 5 days after I make them.
Citi is by far the most complicated to deal with as they tend to "push" the due dates by 3-5 days every month. I rarely use that card because I have to login first to see when the next payment is due first.
When I applied for the card in 2005, I applied and received the Amex platinum, no-preset spending limit charge card.
Ok. Did your card agreement say that you'd be entitled to that no-limit line, at some fixed rate, forever and always? Or does the agreement provide that they can change those items?
These are revolving lines of credit. Not fixed home mortgages.
LittleRedToyota
05-22-09, 17:09
Go rent a car, get a hotel room, a plane ticket, an Internet account, a car insurance policy, or a job using this approach.
nobody is forcing me to do that either.
nor do i have any actual right to expect to be able to do any of that.
if it's really that big of a deal, there should be a great opportunity for someone to start a credit card company/bank that actually treats its customers right. until the consumers start to demand more from the suppliers, though, the suppliers will get away with whatever the consumers are willing to put up with.
that is capitalism...and, overall, capitalism is a wonderful thing.
Actually, you are fighting the wrong battle. No one said the card companies, in general, have illegally been broaching their agreements. We said they have been playing not fair, wrong, sneaky, unethical, or whatever word you want to use. Abusing their customers and customer-relationships. Your question is irrelevant to that accusation. You are setting up a strawman argument in effect.
It's not a strawman. People are claiming that their "agreements" have been violated. Those agreements provide that the amount of credit you get, the interest rate, and whether you get to keep the credit line at all are subject to change.
If you don't like their business practices, don't do business with them.
LittleRedToyota
05-22-09, 17:11
For me, the "breach" is going from a card that has functioned well for me to a card that would not meet my needs. Hell, with the limitations they imposed I'd have trouble buying my airfaire with it.
unfortunately for you, though, "breach" actually means breaking the terms of the contract. i doubt they did that. if they did, you should find a class-action attorney as they most likely did it to many people and you and the attorney stand to make a lot of money.
Actually, there are differences. Even "at will" employment cannot be terminated willy-nilly. There are certain laws on discrimination that pre-empt it.
Yeah, like being fired because you're black, or female, etc. Aside from those narrow exceptions, you can in fact be terminated "willy nilly."
I
There are other differences as well that shoot your example down.
Like what? Your employer can fire you, alter your hours, reduce your compensation, just like the credit card companies can reduce your limit, up your interest rate, etc. Your remedy is to leave and go elsewhere. They suffer whatever damage to their reputation comes with treating people that way but they are allowed to do it.
It's not a strawman. People are claiming that their "agreements" have been violated. Those agreements provide that the amount of credit you get, the interest rate, and whether you get to keep the credit line at all are subject to change.
If you don't like their business practices, don't do business with them.
I think you just want to argue or your a banker. It's late, I'm going to bed.
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m85/iact9a/Godkillsakitten.jpg
Nathan_Bell
05-22-09, 17:18
nobody is forcing me to do that either.
nor do i have any actual right to expect to be able to do any of that.
if it's really that big of a deal, there should be a great opportunity for someone to start a credit card company/bank that actually treats its customers right. until the consumers start to demand more from the suppliers, though, the suppliers will get away with whatever the consumers are willing to put up with.
that is capitalism...and, overall, capitalism is a wonderful thing.
The last two I listed are pretty damned important things for existing. At least in Ohio you are required by law to have insurance on any registered vehicle, 50% rate variance based upon credit score is not unknown.
Credit check for a job is very common, I know s few folks that this was the make or break point of the hiring process. One was told that they had made it in by 5 points. another did not get one due to a bk in her past.
They are using your credit score to decide things that impact well beyond your purchasing and commerce patterns. You should not have to play their game for building credit score to lower the amount you are charged for staying legal or to advance your career.
Yeah, like being fired because you're black, or female, etc. Aside from those narrow exceptions, you can in fact be terminated "willy nilly."
I
Like what? Your employer can fire you, alter your hours, reduce your compensation, just like the credit card companies can reduce your limit, up your interest rate, etc. Your remedy is to leave and go elsewhere. They suffer whatever damage to their reputation comes with treating people that way but they are allowed to do it.
The employer cannot due it after the fact for work already performed. I already explained that once. Banks change interest rates ON EXISTING BALANCES all the time. A person makes a financial decision based on the interest rate on his card. It is WRONG to after the fact, once the person has incurred the debt, to change the conditions on the existing debt. If they want to alter the interest rate, it should be for new uses only.
I also explained that no one was claiming this was a legal issue so all your crap about agreements is just that, crap.
It's not a strawman. People are claiming that their "agreements" have been violated. Those agreements provide that the amount of credit you get, the interest rate, and whether you get to keep the credit line at all are subject to change.
If you don't like their business practices, don't do business with them.
Where has anyone claimed that a legal breach of contract occurred? We just are listing the bad or wrong or unethical things that they do.
LittleRedToyota
05-22-09, 17:27
The last two I listed are pretty damned important things for existing.
no, they really aren't. people seem to confuse "existing" with "living the cushy, materialistic lifestyles we have all come to take for granted in this society".
you do not have a right to a job. you do not have a right to credit. you do not have a right to dicate how a business treats you as a customer (beyond what they agree to in a contract). you do not have a right to that cushy lifestyle.
if you don't like the rules of the game, don't play it.
for starters, eat ramen noodles, save up some money, and start your own business (without borrowing money to do it). then you get to make your own rules.
or beat the companies at their own game...start a consumer group and get people to boycott credit card companies that implement policies with which you disagree.
i agree with many of your complaints, but i'm not confused about what i do and do not actually have a right to...or what the government does and does not legitimately have the authority to do.
i agree with many of your complaints, but i'm not confused about what i do and do not actually have a right to...or what the government does and does not legitimately have the authority to do.
I don't think most of us here disagree with you and the people here, for the most part, who are complaining about the CC are not agreeing with the govt sticking its nose in. You and dbrowne seem to think that even voicing a concern or complaint about banks and their practices means we think the govt should do something about it etc.
I brought up the abusive practices of these companies to explain why this measure has popular support -- not to put my own support behind it. Unfortunately, average joe citizen DOES expect the govt to do something about it.
LittleRedToyota
05-22-09, 17:35
I don't think most of us here disagree with you and the people here, for the most part, who are complaining about the CC are not agreeing with the govt sticking its nose in. You and dbrowne seem to think that even voicing a concern or complaint about banks and their practices means we think the govt should do something about it etc.
I brought up the abusive practices of these companies to explain why this measure has popular support -- not to put my own support behind it. Unfortunately, average joe citizen DOES expect the govt to do something about it.
i don't have any problem with people voicing complaints...people should voice complaints if they have them. i don't think i have responded to any of your posts because i think that is exactly what you are doing.
a few of the others seemed to me to go over that line and claim contracts were breached or they have rights they don't have...but maybe i was reading more into the posts than was really there.
(my participation started with a response to someone saying this has nothing to do with private contracts...that is just plain dead wrong and that is where my arguments are coming from.)
i don't have any problem with people voicing complaints...people should voice complaints if they have them. i don't think i have responded to any of your posts because i think that is exactly what you are doing.
a few of the others seemed to me to go over that line and claim contracts were breached or they have rights they don't have...but maybe i was reading more into the posts than was really there.
(my participation started with a response to someone saying this has nothing to do with private contracts...that is just plain dead wrong and that is where my arguments are coming from.)
my apologies
LittleRedToyota
05-22-09, 17:57
my apologies
no apologies necessary...just trying to clear up any confusion i may have created.
forums aren't always the most perfect communication medium, eh? ;)
Where has anyone claimed that a legal breach of contract occurred? We just are listing the bad or wrong or unethical things that they do.
You said:
Extending of credit is like a contract and should be honored.
ryanm said:
We entered into an agreement in good faith and it was not honored.
Just to name two examples.
If your position is that they are allowed to do it but it's just "unfair" or you don't like it, then I don't disagree. The market will correct them in the long run as people won't use them for credit, or at least people who have good credit will go elsewhere and they'll be left with crappy credit risks in their portfolio.
exkc135driver
05-22-09, 18:03
It's not a strawman. People are claiming that their "agreements" have been violated. Those agreements provide that the amount of credit you get, the interest rate, and whether you get to keep the credit line at all are subject to change.
And that is the problem. Your agreement with the credit card company (probably) states that they can increase/decrease your credit limit, your interest rate, and otherwise change the terms of the agreement. They probably have to give you x days' notice before those changes go into effect. You may be able to decline the changes (or maybe not, depending on your agreement), but if you continue to use the card, you are deemed to have accepted the changes,
So: you made a deal, and part of the deal is, that they get to change the deal ... but you, of course, don't get to change anything. Is that moral? In my [personal] view, no. Is that ethical? In my [personal] view, no. Is that fair? In my [personal] view, no. Is that legal? Yes, absolutely, 100%.
If I enter into an agreement with dbrowne wherein I agree to pay him $300/hour for services, and the agreement states that he can increase that rate with 30 days' notice, I'm probably entering into the agreement with the assumption that he either won't raise his rates or that any raises will be incremental. But that is my assumption, not part of the agreement. If he decides to raise his rate to $500/hour, I can either pay it or go find another ... um ... whatever it is that he does.
Moral? Ethical? Fair? That is a value judgment. You decide. But legal? Yep, sho 'nuff.
You said:
ryanm said:
Just to name two examples.
If your position is that they are allowed to do it but it's just "unfair" or you don't like it, then I don't disagree. The market will correct them in the long run as people won't use them for credit, or at least people who have good credit will go elsewhere and they'll be left with crappy credit risks in their portfolio.
try again. The examples do not make any claims that a legal agreement was broken.
Notice I said "like" and not "is"
ryanm is talking about good faith keeping of the terms and not playing games. Those examples do not show us making claims of legality
try again. The examples do not make any claims that a legal agreement was broken.
Notice I said "like" and not "is"
Did you go to law school with Bill Clinton, by any chance?
Did you go to law school with Bill Clinton, by any chance?
You forget your history. He was redefining the word "is". I purposely used a different word that you want to redefine to mean "is."
The period for debate is now over: the bill was signed into law.
Here is a synopsis of the likely fall-out.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30888662//
While I rest on my earlier comments, I am pleased that in (un)due time, we will at least have our carry rights restored.
Eventually, I would like the entire US to adopt Vermont-style carry laws.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.