Can socialists in this country explain how taxing American corporations/companies more is good?

[Spare_change]

Obama isn't so dumb. I think he is quite bright and possibly one of our best presidents ever. Yes, he with the help of Congress reduced the abject theft credit card companies were perpetrating upon the American consumers.

No, all he did was force them to shift credit card company costs to other people.

Credit cards did make their money from people that didn't pay them on time. But typical liberal thinking, the credit card companies would just dig deeper into their pockets and have one less limo or yacht.

What happened is that the companies started to charge transfer fees to their good, honest and responsible borrowers. They were forced to recoup that loss in other places.

So now the worthless irresponsible customers (likely Democrat voters) get a break and the charge now goes to honest responsible customers (likely Republican voters). I've been using credit cards for decades, and since this idiotic law passed, it's the first time I've ever had to pay a transfer fee even though I have an outstanding credit rating.

What an articulate response contravening the points made by the previous poster.

Is this truly the level of your understanding?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You know, I have credit cards too but I pay off the balance each month. However, my low rates did NOT change at all between 2009 and now.. Maybe it is because I don't deal with Banks. Instead I use Federal Credit Unions which also offer shares. The banks you cited may have engaged in the nefarious practices your link indicated but my credit unions did not.

You seemed to have handpicked some of the most notorious banks to make your point but perhaps these charts can guide the casual reader in understanding the truth: At least ONE bank, Capitol 1, didn't scramble to make changes before the new law passed. What do you think… just curiious about your interpertatoin of these gtweo charts…one from 2009, the other from 2016:

I don't have a problem with interest rates because I always pay 0% interest. I'm talking about balance transfers from one card to another once that 0% interest rate expires. Until the Democrats started to meddle in things they should have kept their nose out of, I never paid a balance transfer fee, and I never paid interest either. Banks gave that special to people with great credit scores.

Business should run business and government should govern. When government starts running business, that's when all the problems start.

 

[JQPublic1]

You know, I have credit cards too but I pay off the balance each month. However, my low rates did NOT change at all between 2009 and now.. Maybe it is because I don't deal with Banks. Instead I use Federal Credit Unions which also offer shares. The banks you cited may have engaged in the nefarious practices your link indicated but my credit unions did not.

You seemed to have handpicked some of the most notorious banks to make your point but perhaps these charts can guide the casual reader in understanding the truth: At least ONE bank, Capitol 1, didn't scramble to make changes before the new law passed. What do you think… just curiious about your interpertatoin of these gtweo charts…one from 2009, the other from 2016:

I don't have a problem with interest rates because I always pay 0% interest. I'm talking about balance transfers from one card to another once that 0% interest rate expires. Until the Democrats started to meddle in things they should have kept their nose out of, I never paid a balance transfer fee, and I never paid interest either. Banks gave that special to people with great credit scores.

Business should run business and government should govern. When government starts running business, that's when all the problems start.

I guess you HAVE NO COMMENT ON THE CHARTS I provided which show that not all banks jumped to push up their transfer rates before the Credit Card law took effect. Nor do you have anything to say about Credit Unios and what they did during that same period of time.. Ok, this has gone on long enough…. you aren't paying attention so… adios

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I guess you HAVE NO COMMENT ON THE CHARTS I provided which show that not all banks jumped to push up their transfer rates before the Credit Card law took effect. Nor do you have anything to say about Credit Unios and what they did during that same period of time.. Ok, this has gone on long enough…. you aren't paying attention so… adios

Good choice on your part.

 

[Andylusion]

You know, I have credit cards too but I pay off the balance each month. However, my low rates did NOT change at all between 2009 and now.. Maybe it is because I don't deal with Banks. Instead I use Federal Credit Unions which also offer shares. The banks you cited may have engaged in the nefarious practices your link indicated but my credit unions did not.

You seemed to have handpicked some of the most notorious banks to make your point but perhaps these charts can guide the casual reader in understanding the truth: At least ONE bank, Capitol 1, didn't scramble to make changes before the new law passed. What do you think… just curiious about your interpertatoin of these gtweo charts…one from 2009, the other from 2016:

I don't have a problem with interest rates because I always pay 0% interest. I'm talking about balance transfers from one card to another once that 0% interest rate expires. Until the Democrats started to meddle in things they should have kept their nose out of, I never paid a balance transfer fee, and I never paid interest either. Banks gave that special to people with great credit scores.

Business should run business and government should govern. When government starts running business, that's when all the problems start.

I guess you HAVE NO COMMENT ON THE CHARTS I provided which show that not all banks jumped to push up their transfer rates before the Credit Card law took effect. Nor do you have anything to say about Credit Unios and what they did during that same period of time.. Ok, this has gone on long enough…. you aren't paying attention so… adios

Your charts didn't prove anything. Yes or no..... did banks adjust rates up on all customers, in anticipation of the implementation of the CARD act?

Yes or no. Not well what about this, and and how much completely irrelevant and unimportant crap can I bring up to avoid the answer.

The answer to the question is "YES". Period, end of discussion, you lose.

You want more proof? Ok.

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201309_cfpb_card-act-report.pdf

Facts listed in this publication by the consumer financial protection bureau, 2013.

1. Page 5, front end interest rates increased (paid by all consumers) while back-end rates and fees decreased (paid by those who fail to pay on time, or default).
2. Page 7, Many credit cards now charge application fees that exceed 25% of the credit cards starting limit.
3. Page 7, now 43% (or more today) of credit cards offer deferred interest, where the initial purchase is interest free until a certain date, where if not paid off, you are retroactively charged interest on the entire value of the purchase.
4. Page 25, the number of credit cards with annual fees, and the amounts of those fees, have increased. They estimate that consumers have paid an additionally $475 Million dollars in annual fees in 2012.
5. Page 35, total cost of credit, and APR for small business has increased by 3.5% since the CARD act was implemented.
6. Page 41, new account origination are down significantly.
7. Page 44, credit offered to younger users, is down by more than half.
8. Page 47, approval rates are down by almost 10%.
9. Page 51, average size of new credit limits, down from $3,100 to $2,400.
10. Page 55, average size of small business credit limit, down 73% of what it was in 2008.
11. Page 58, percentage of credit limit increases, in 2008 was over 5% of all accounts. Now it's only 2% of all accounts.

The CARD act, had exactly the effects I predicted it would have. Increase in interest rates all all consumers, and a decrease of availability.

Now to be fair, I like this. I hate borrowing, and the more we eliminate borrowing from our society, the better. So I'm actually in favor of capping interest rates, and capping credit entirely.

However, you people on the left, pretended that you could do this, and have credit for everyone. You were wrong. This legislation increased credit costs on everyone, and reduced availability for everyone.

This isn't a debatable point. It's a fact. For you to deny this, just makes you wrong. It's proven.... it's undeniable. You are WRONG. Period.

 

[JQPublic1]

I guess you HAVE NO COMMENT ON THE CHARTS I provided which show that not all banks jumped to push up their transfer rates before the Credit Card law took effect. Nor do you have anything to say about Credit Unios and what they did during that same period of time.. Ok, this has gone on long enough…. you aren't paying attention so… adios

Good choice on your part.

YAWWNNNN!

 

[JQPublic1]

Your charts didn't prove anything. Yes or no..... did banks adjust rates up on all customers, in anticipation of the implementation of the CARD act?

The charts show that some banks did NOT adjust rates up on all customers in anticipation of the implementation of the Credit Card Act. Yes or no? And as I said, my credit union did not raise rates either during that time. IN fact credit unions provided an alternative to banks and provided much better credit card deals and more attractive interest and transfer rates.

The CARD act, had exactly the effects I predicted it would have. Increase in interest rates all all consumers, and a decrease of availability.

I haven't had a conversation with you concerning this matter so your prediction is meaningless to me. Your prediction apparently did not include credit unions. Peoile smart enough to join them came out ahead dealing with credit cards.

Credit Unions to the Rescue?

Now to be fair, I like this. I hate borrowing, and the more we eliminate borrowing from our society, the better. So I'm actually in favor of capping interest rates, and capping credit entirely.

We agree on this. But if we must borrow why not use a credit union and save. You also own shares when you join a credit union.

However, you people on the left, pretended that you could do this, and have credit for everyone. You were wrong. This legislation increased credit costs on everyone, and reduced availability for everyone.

I have no idea of what you are talking about here. I certainly don't favor credit for people who don't pay their debts. Any argument I posit is for people with decent or good credit. The legislation might have increased credit costs on everyone, and reduced availability for everyone who uses banks but that tactic only drove smart people with good credit to join credit unions. I joined back in 2000 and my rates never changed. I must admit, though, thatI never carried a balance.. But my rate started out as 8.25 apr % on purchases and never changed. If I had a balance I guess a zero introductory rate would seem to be a compelling reason to
transfer. It should be duly noted that only 25% of credit unions charge a balance transfer fee vs 88% of banks.

This isn't a debatable point. It's a fact. For you to deny this, just makes you wrong. It's proven.... it's undeniable. You are WRONG. Period.

What am I wrong about? I really would like to know?

 

[Andylusion]

Your charts didn't prove anything. Yes or no..... did banks adjust rates up on all customers, in anticipation of the implementation of the CARD act?

The charts show that some banks did NOT adjust rates up on all customers in anticipation of the implementation of the Credit Card Act. Yes or no? And as I said, my credit union did not raise rates either during that time. IN fact credit unions provided an alternative to banks and provided much better credit card deals and more attractive interest and transfer rates.

The CARD act, had exactly the effects I predicted it would have. Increase in interest rates all all consumers, and a decrease of availability.

I haven't had a conversation with you concerning this matter so your prediction is meaningless to me. Your prediction apparently did not include credit unions. Peoile smart enough to join them came out ahead dealing with credit cards.

Credit Unions to the Rescue?

Now to be fair, I like this. I hate borrowing, and the more we eliminate borrowing from our society, the better. So I'm actually in favor of capping interest rates, and capping credit entirely.

We agree on this. But if we must borrow why not use a credit union and save. You also own shares when you join a credit union.

However, you people on the left, pretended that you could do this, and have credit for everyone. You were wrong. This legislation increased credit costs on everyone, and reduced availability for everyone.

I have no idea of what you are talking about here. I certainly don't favor credit for people who don't pay their debts. Any argument I posit is for people with decent or good credit. The legislation might have increased credit costs on everyone, and reduced availability for everyone who uses banks but that tactic only drove smart people with good credit to join credit unions. I joined back in 2000 and my rates never changed. I must admit, though, thatI never carried a balance.. But my rate started out as 8.25 apr % on purchases and never changed. If I had a balance I guess a zero introductory rate would seem to be a compelling reason to
transfer. It should be duly noted that only 25% of credit unions charge a balance transfer fee vs 88% of banks.

This isn't a debatable point. It's a fact. For you to deny this, just makes you wrong. It's proven.... it's undeniable. You are WRONG. Period.

What am I wrong about? I really would like to know?

Yes, the chart showed that some banks did not increase their interest rates. Credit Unions, and blaw blaw blaw yippy skippy.

Ok, so back to the government report, which showed that over all, there was a drastic increase in interest rates leading up to the implementation of the CARD Act.

This a fact. Yes or no?

I haven't had a credit card, or loan of any kind, for almost 10 years. So it doesn't matter if I'm joining a bank, or a credit union.

Nor do I care about what deal you have with a credit union, or bank, or green men from mars.

You mentioned the CARD Act. Ray correctly pointed out that the CARD act did not lower the costs of borrowing, or eliminate additional fees. It simply lowered the ability to borrow, and increased the costs on the average consumers. You argued with him about that, and you are wrong.

It did not increase costs uniformly on every single consumer. Clearly institutions which had fewer or no high-risk borrowers who are late, or default.... would OBVIOUSLY.... have no costs to shift to average consumers.

People who are late, or default, end up costing the banks money. You have to pay people, to manage problematic accounts. If your bank or credit union, or whatever the heck you have credit with, has no problematic accounts, they don't have this cost. If they don't have that cost.... then they don't have to shift that cost to other consumers. Thus some people didn't see interest rate increases.

Great for you. Now as to the other 90% of America, they saw rate increases. That's a fact. Not an opinion. It's documented, not debated. So your claims that the CARD Act had a positive influence, is wrong. Period. You are WRONG.

 

[JQPublic1]

You mentioned the CARD Act. Ray correctly pointed out that the CARD act did not lower the costs of borrowing, or eliminate additional fees. It simply lowered the ability to borrow, and increased the costs on the average consumers. You argued with him about that, and you are wrong.

I never said the Credit Card Act lowered the costs of borrowing or that it eliminated additional fees. Ray was standing on a soap box and created that straw man to make it seem that I held a position he could argue against. You two have that skill in common. I can't be wrong about something I never said. I mentioned the Credit Card Act as an adjunct to the premise of reform, nothing more. Ray took off on a tangent that devalued the gains given to consumers and focused on his own perspective about higher fees and less accessibility. Hell, he didn't like it but even YOU agreed that it was a good thing. I wasn't wrong abut that and neither were YOU!

 

[Andylusion]

You mentioned the CARD Act. Ray correctly pointed out that the CARD act did not lower the costs of borrowing, or eliminate additional fees. It simply lowered the ability to borrow, and increased the costs on the average consumers. You argued with him about that, and you are wrong.

I never said the Credit Card Act lowered the costs of borrowing or that it eliminated additional fees. Ray was standing on a soap box and created that straw man to make it seem that I held a position he could argue against. You two have that skill in common. I can't be wrong about something I never said. I mentioned the Credit Card Act as an adjunct to the premise of reform, nothing more. Ray took off on a tangent that devalued the gains given to consumers and focused on his own perspective about higher fees and less accessibility. Hell, he didn't like it but even YOU agreed that it was a good thing. I wasn't wrong abut that and neither were YOU!

You said:

Obama isn't so dumb. I think he is quite bright and possibly one of our best presidents ever. Yes, he with the help of Congress reduced the abject theft credit card companies were perpetrating upon the American consumers.

and

Poor people generally can't even get credit because they can't qualify for anything more than the usurious rates offered by loan sharks. But some have no choice and they fall into the trap just as their well paid American neighbors do. MIss a payment and even the mainstream credit card companies jack up the rates and report you to one of the three credit bureaus…thereby ruining your credit and hindering you even further.

Reduce abject theft of credit card companies? So increasing interest rates, and annual fees, on all borrowers instead of just those who failed to pay on time, is "reducing abject theft" in your left-wing world?

You said that poor people have no choice in borrowing which is why they fall into these traps, which you claim the CARD Act was needed. Correct?

But I just proved that the result of the CARD Act was to reduce credit to these very people. It didn't reduce costs and fees.... it reduce the credit availability.

You were wrong. Ray, was right.

 

[JQPublic1]

You mentioned the CARD Act. Ray correctly pointed out that the CARD act did not lower the costs of borrowing, or eliminate additional fees. It simply lowered the ability to borrow, and increased the costs on the average consumers. You argued with him about that, and you are wrong.

I never said the Credit Card Act lowered the costs of borrowing or that it eliminated additional fees. Ray was standing on a soap box and created that straw man to make it seem that I held a position he could argue against. You two have that skill in common. I can't be wrong about something I never said. I mentioned the Credit Card Act as an adjunct to the premise of reform, nothing more. Ray took off on a tangent that devalued the gains given to consumers and focused on his own perspective about higher fees and less accessibility. Hell, he didn't like it but even YOU agreed that it was a good thing. I wasn't wrong abut that and neither were YOU!

You said:

Obama isn't so dumb. I think he is quite bright and possibly one of our best presidents ever. Yes, he with the help of Congress reduced the abject theft credit card companies were perpetrating upon the American consumers.

and

Poor people generally can't even get credit because they can't qualify for anything more than the usurious rates offered by loan sharks. But some have no choice and they fall into the trap just as their well paid American neighbors do. MIss a payment and even the mainstream credit card companies jack up the rates and report you to one of the three credit bureaus…thereby ruining your credit and hindering you even further.

Reduce abject theft of credit card companies? So increasing interest rates, and annual fees, on all borrowers instead of just those who failed to pay on time, is "reducing abject theft" in your left-wing world?

You said that poor people have no choice in borrowing which is why they fall into these traps, which you claim the CARD Act was needed. Correct?

But I just proved that the result of the CARD Act was to reduce credit to these very people. It didn't reduce costs and fees.... it reduce the credit availability.

You were wrong. Ray, was right.

I wasn't wrong. The abject theft of SOME ( I should have included the term" some" in my original statement but I didn't) credit card companies ( mainly banks) was curtailed by the Credit Card Act. Here are examples of the theft I was talking about:


Safeguards Against Rate Increases

• 
  Under the Credit CARD Act, rate increases aren’t allowed during the first year, and promotional rates need to last at least six months.
• 
  The Act prohibits "double cycle billing," where credit card holders are charged interest on debt that’s paid on time during a grace period.
• 
  It prohibits "universal default," where a lender changes a loan to default terms because the consumer has defaulted on a loan with another lender.
• 
  After the first year, cardholders must be told about major account changes 45 days before they take effect. New rates can’t start until 14 days after the notice is mailed. The cardholder has the option to cancel the account and pay off the balance at the existing rate.
  
  Those four major points of the Credit Card Act did curtail the abject thievery of some credit card entities. I don't care how you twist it, the transparency and pro consumer reforms saved many people a lot of money. I was right. The theft WAS reduced as I said. I did not say it was eliminated!
  
  
  Other restrictions that kept credit card gouging down include:
  

Improved Billing Practices

• 
  The Credit CARD Act gives consumers 21 days to pay their monthly credit card bills (compared to the former minimum of 14 days).
• 
  Payment due dates must be the same day of each month, and consumers need to be allowed three weeks between the time a bill is mailed and when it’s due.
• 
  Credit card statements need to be in a specific font so they can be read easily.

Fee Restrictions

• 
  In almost all cases, consumers can’t be charged for the method they use to pay their credit card bill.
• 
  The Credit CARD Act limits fees consumers can be charged for spending over their credit limits.
• 
  There are new limits to the fees consumers can be charged on subprime cards (cards with higher rates and fewer rewards).

More Disclosures

• 
  Consumers must be told how long it will take them to pay off a balance if they only make minimum payments.
• 
  Credit card agreements must be made available online.
• 
  Statements need to include the payment due date, the minimum amount due, the ending balance and late fee information.

Protections for People Under 21

• 
  Under the Act, people under 21 will only be able to get a credit card with proof they can make payments on their own, or with the help of an adult co-signer.
• 
  The Act restricts incentives given to students who sign up for credit cards.
  
  The listed items address the "theft" I was referencing. Anything outside of that concerning this exchange is conjectural as well as specious. For example:
  
  

  You said that poor people have no choice in borrowing which is why they fall into these traps, which you claim the CARD Act was needed. Correct?

• I assume poor people, as a rule of thumb, do not have good credit and are lured by subprime credit card offers. The CARD Act limits the fees that can be charged on such cards. I was right again…. My only regret is I allowed you and ray to lure me into this off topic sideshow for so long.

 

[Wilbur Right]

My only regret is I allowed you and ray to lure me into this off topic sideshow for so long.

LMAO. You have been trying to have an intelligent conversation with two of the most highly afflicted Obama Derangement Syndrome people on this message board.

It's a futile effort. They (Ray Ray and Andy) have no desire to really discuss an issue. It's all they are right, everyone else but them is wrong. And when you finally show them information they can't ignore, they ignore it.

Funny shit.

 

[Conservative65]

You're all over the forum talking about how others don't know how to run a business. It either means you do run a business, thereby, having a knowledge of how to do it or you're just another loud mouth liar that claims to know something for which you have no knowledge.

Damn. They seemed like simple questions. I take it you are not a business owner. I was just curious dude..why you so defensive and whiny?

Dude? You must be 10 years old.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Dude? You must be 10 years old

Why are you so defensive and whiny........dude? Can't you ever answer a simple, direct question?

Why have you chosen to make yourself a miserable, selfish bastard?

Do you own a business. That was a simple, easy question. And YOU couldn't even answer that.

You fucking weird......Dude.


Besides that dude, I am only 6 years old. That's right asshole. You have been arguing and trying to insult a six year old. Does that make you feel a big man? Tough? Bully?

LMAO dude.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Besides that dude, I am only 6 years old. That's right asshole. You have been arguing and trying to insult a six year old.

Why do I actually believe that???

 

[Wilbur Right]

Why do I actually believe that???

Because you'll fucking believe ANYTHING. LMAO.

I am the smartest 4 year old you'll ever meet. Online or in person.

 

[Andylusion]

You mentioned the CARD Act. Ray correctly pointed out that the CARD act did not lower the costs of borrowing, or eliminate additional fees. It simply lowered the ability to borrow, and increased the costs on the average consumers. You argued with him about that, and you are wrong.

I never said the Credit Card Act lowered the costs of borrowing or that it eliminated additional fees. Ray was standing on a soap box and created that straw man to make it seem that I held a position he could argue against. You two have that skill in common. I can't be wrong about something I never said. I mentioned the Credit Card Act as an adjunct to the premise of reform, nothing more. Ray took off on a tangent that devalued the gains given to consumers and focused on his own perspective about higher fees and less accessibility. Hell, he didn't like it but even YOU agreed that it was a good thing. I wasn't wrong abut that and neither were YOU!

You said:

Obama isn't so dumb. I think he is quite bright and possibly one of our best presidents ever. Yes, he with the help of Congress reduced the abject theft credit card companies were perpetrating upon the American consumers.

and

Poor people generally can't even get credit because they can't qualify for anything more than the usurious rates offered by loan sharks. But some have no choice and they fall into the trap just as their well paid American neighbors do. MIss a payment and even the mainstream credit card companies jack up the rates and report you to one of the three credit bureaus…thereby ruining your credit and hindering you even further.

Reduce abject theft of credit card companies? So increasing interest rates, and annual fees, on all borrowers instead of just those who failed to pay on time, is "reducing abject theft" in your left-wing world?

You said that poor people have no choice in borrowing which is why they fall into these traps, which you claim the CARD Act was needed. Correct?

But I just proved that the result of the CARD Act was to reduce credit to these very people. It didn't reduce costs and fees.... it reduce the credit availability.

You were wrong. Ray, was right.

I wasn't wrong. The abject theft of SOME ( I should have included the term" some" in my original statement but I didn't) credit card companies ( mainly banks) was curtailed by the Credit Card Act. Here are examples of the theft I was talking about:


Safeguards Against Rate Increases

• 
  Under the Credit CARD Act, rate increases aren’t allowed during the first year, and promotional rates need to last at least six months.
• 
  The Act prohibits "double cycle billing," where credit card holders are charged interest on debt that’s paid on time during a grace period.
• 
  It prohibits "universal default," where a lender changes a loan to default terms because the consumer has defaulted on a loan with another lender.
• 
  After the first year, cardholders must be told about major account changes 45 days before they take effect. New rates can’t start until 14 days after the notice is mailed. The cardholder has the option to cancel the account and pay off the balance at the existing rate.
  
  Those four major points of the Credit Card Act did curtail the abject thievery of some credit card entities. I don't care how you twist it, the transparency and pro consumer reforms saved many people a lot of money. I was right. The theft WAS reduced as I said. I did not say it was eliminated!
  
  
  Other restrictions that kept credit card gouging down include:

Improved Billing Practices

• 
  The Credit CARD Act gives consumers 21 days to pay their monthly credit card bills (compared to the former minimum of 14 days).
• 
  Payment due dates must be the same day of each month, and consumers need to be allowed three weeks between the time a bill is mailed and when it’s due.
• 
  Credit card statements need to be in a specific font so they can be read easily.

Fee Restrictions

• 
  In almost all cases, consumers can’t be charged for the method they use to pay their credit card bill.
• 
  The Credit CARD Act limits fees consumers can be charged for spending over their credit limits.
• 
  There are new limits to the fees consumers can be charged on subprime cards (cards with higher rates and fewer rewards).

More Disclosures

• 
  Consumers must be told how long it will take them to pay off a balance if they only make minimum payments.
• 
  Credit card agreements must be made available online.
• 
  Statements need to include the payment due date, the minimum amount due, the ending balance and late fee information.

Protections for People Under 21

• 
  Under the Act, people under 21 will only be able to get a credit card with proof they can make payments on their own, or with the help of an adult co-signer.
• 
  The Act restricts incentives given to students who sign up for credit cards.
  
  The listed items address the "theft" I was referencing. Anything outside of that concerning this exchange is conjectural as well as specious. For example:
  
  

  You said that poor people have no choice in borrowing which is why they fall into these traps, which you claim the CARD Act was needed. Correct?

• I assume poor people, as a rule of thumb, do not have good credit and are lured by subprime credit card offers. The CARD Act limits the fees that can be charged on such cards. I was right again…. My only regret is I allowed you and ray to lure me into this off topic sideshow for so long.

You said poor people needed credit. That was what you said. Now they are not getting credit.

And while all that other stuff was true.... the fact still remains that credit card companies are still getting money from the consumers, just that now instead of only charging those who pay late, or default..... now they charge everyone.

Yes, they can't increase interest rates in the first 45 days. Yippy skippy. Most credit card companies simply charged a higher interest rate on everyone, to begin with. How is that a 'fix', in your book?

Yes, there are more protections for younger consumers. So instead, credit cards simply don't give credit to younger consumer. Apparently your idea of "protection" is to simply protect them from getting credit.

Fee restrictions! How wonderful, so now you have a fee to even apply for the card, and annual fees to have the card. Instead of fees on the people failing to pay, let's levy fees on everyone. $475 Million in ADDITIONAL fees, over what was paid before.

That really stuck it to the credit card companies.... Stuck $475 Million to them at least.

Credit Card Companies: A Cautionary Note

Another way to determine how much you are sticking it to the credit card companies, is simply to see how their profit margins are doing. In 2010, there was a dip in the profit margins. True.

But the profit margins of nearly every credit card company, is higher today, than it was in 2008-2009.

This would be impossible, if the CARD Acts only effect was to prevent companies from charging the fees and jacking interest rates. Clearly the entire industry moved to make up lost revenue through other sources. Which again, is exactly what Ray said.

 

[Andylusion]

Why do I actually believe that???

Because you'll fucking believe ANYTHING. LMAO.

I am the smartest 4 year old you'll ever meet. Online or in person.

Well.... that and the fact you sounds like a 6 year old, and talk like a 6 year old, and you have the arguments of a 6 year old, with the latest post you wrote, as evidence.

And you being the smartest 4 year old I'll ever meet.... I doubt it. I've met some that have given me better arguments, than you have thus far.

 

[Wilbur Right]

But the profit margins of nearly every credit card company, is higher today, than it was in 2008-2009.

Take it up with the fucking lobbyists that made sure this legislation was profitable for the cc companies.

You fucking don't use credit. WTF do you care? Ray Ray has more money than God, WTF does he care.

You think the lobbyists for credit card companies couldn't figure out a way to make more money off of supposed legislation for the good of the "people"

How naive are you?

 

[Wilbur Right]

And you being the smartest 4 year old I'll ever meet.... I doubt it. I've met some that have given me better arguments, than you have thus far.

Hey I am at least smart enough to not argue with an idiot such as yourself. Which makes me smarter than YOU.

Why jq public was arguing with you, I don't know. Maybe he hasn't read as much of your bullshit as I have.