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

[sealybobo]

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.

I can not stand this thread title and wish you'd stop being suckered into advancing it.

This is classic Republicans trying to control the message.

Do Republicans think corporations should be tax free like churches?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because you'll fucking believe ANYTHING. LMAO.

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

Yes, you are a legend in your own mind.

 

[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.

I can not stand this thread title and wish you'd stop being suckered into advancing it.

This is classic Republicans trying to control the message.

Do Republicans think corporations should be tax free like churches?

You've got it wrong.The last several posts weren't advancing the title of the thread at all. But I do sympathize with you. The thread was started by a troll and his troll friends have been desperately trying to keep it alive. I feel ya, bro.

 

[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.

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.

Off topic

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

 

[bripat9643]

In 2009, the Democrats had control of both the House and the Senate

And? The legislation passed with bi partisan support. Why?

Because the Tea Party had not yet formed and the GOP obstructionists had not been elected yet.

Not a single Republican voted for it. That's your idea of "bi-partisan support?"

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Dude? Using that phrase proves, while you chronological age may be higher, your mental age is 6.

I'm quite happy and definitely not miserable. However, you were offered a chance to be a man and hid behind a lawyer. How fucking pitiful is that?

 

[Conservative65]

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?

You would think people that CHOOSE to use credit cards knowing what the rate is BEFORE they use it would STFU when they actually have to pay what they knew they'd have to pay.

Good of the people? Oh, the typical Liberal statement meaning you should run your business the way we think you should. Sorry, businesses are in business to make a profit.

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.

You're the biggest dumbass anyone will ever meet online or in person.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

I can not stand this thread title and wish you'd stop being suckered into advancing it.

This is classic Republicans trying to control the message.

Do Republicans think corporations should be tax free like churches?

You've got it wrong.The last several posts weren't advancing the title of the thread at all. But I do sympathize with you. The thread was started by a troll and his troll friends have been desperately trying to keep it alive. I feel ya, bro.

I started another thread, "do Republicans think corporations should pay no taxes" and they're having a hard time admitting it.

Damn it! By replying to you and you me we are advancing this thread. Come find my thread. We control the message not them.

BTW they say corporations should pay 15% and so should everyone. Is that fair? Would it work? Don't reply here. Fuck this thread it bothers the hell out of me. Dumb cons

 

[Andylusion]

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.

I can not stand this thread title and wish you'd stop being suckered into advancing it.

This is classic Republicans trying to control the message.

Do Republicans think corporations should be tax free like churches?

You've got it wrong.The last several posts weren't advancing the title of the thread at all. But I do sympathize with you. The thread was started by a troll and his troll friends have been desperately trying to keep it alive. I feel ya, bro.

I started another thread, "do Republicans think corporations should pay no taxes" and they're having a hard time admitting it.

Damn it! By replying to you and you me we are advancing this thread. Come find my thread. We control the message not them.

BTW they say corporations should pay 15% and so should everyone. Is that fair? Would it work? Don't reply here. Fuck this thread it bothers the hell out of me. Dumb cons

No, I freely admit it. Corporations should pay no tax.

Only an idiot thinks that taxing more and more money from corporations is going to cause them to invest more, and build more, and create more jobs. Only an idiot thinks that way. Or in this case, and entire ideology of idiocy.

 

[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.

Off topic

How pathetic is that. You spend 20 posts talking about the topic. I prove you wrong with quotes from your own posts, and suddenly, "this is off topic... um. don't trolls". Well stop feeding yourself Mr. Off-Topic-Troll.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Hey let me help you out buddy.

I have a solution for people that are too incompetent to talk to. It's called ignore. See, when I click this button on the forum, you, for all intents and purposes, cease to exist. I'll never see your name. Never see your posts. Never know you are even alive, let alone if you are on the forum anymore.

And given your posts haven't had the intellectual quality of a toddler, nor the even the amusement factor of a kitten..... I won't miss you. In fact, in a day or two, I likely will forget you ever existed to begin with.

Good bye pathetic little troll. Others may feed you, but I'll never know. Why? Because the ignore function blocks even your quoted text. I won't even know if other people are responding to you. Bye bye sadly little internet troll. Have good one.

... and there he goes... never to be seen by me again. Love that ignore feature. Best feature on this board.

 

[Wilbur Right]

No, I freely admit it. Corporations should pay no tax.

You freely admit a lot of stupid shit. So what. Sure as fuck doesn't make what you admit correct.

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

I can not stand this thread title and wish you'd stop being suckered into advancing it.

This is classic Republicans trying to control the message.

Do Republicans think corporations should be tax free like churches?

You've got it wrong.The last several posts weren't advancing the title of the thread at all. But I do sympathize with you. The thread was started by a troll and his troll friends have been desperately trying to keep it alive. I feel ya, bro.

I started another thread, "do Republicans think corporations should pay no taxes" and they're having a hard time admitting it.

Damn it! By replying to you and you me we are advancing this thread. Come find my thread. We control the message not them.

BTW they say corporations should pay 15% and so should everyone. Is that fair? Would it work? Don't reply here. Fuck this thread it bothers the hell out of me. Dumb cons

I know you mean well Sealy but I'm not going to be controlled by ANYBODY, that includes you. I may or may not respond here. Its my choice. But thanks for the support any way. Hope there are no hard feelings.

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

Off topic

How pathetic is that. You spend 20 posts talking about the topic. I prove you wrong with quotes from your own posts, and suddenly, "this is off topic... um. don't trolls". Well stop feeding yourself Mr. Off-Topic-Troll.

You haven't proven anything except what a simple minded bullshit artist you are. Everything I said is true and verifiable….. Only You and Ray can't bring your selves to admit it. You make blanket statements about something but when complex details are pointed out and the evidence is presented before you something is triggered inside of you that compells you to resist acknowledging the truth.

 

[Markle]

Of course, corporate "figures" have nothing to do with it.

Tell me ... how come your hallowed table (misleading as it is) doesn't have a tax consumption column? Which one of your "divisions" - something you seem to be particularly good at - consume the most tax dollars?

If corps don't pay, who does, dupe?

Tax consumption is hard to say...who uses infrastructure the most? Etc etc etc....The point is, who's laughing to the bank? Who's losing? see sig.

Consumption isn't hard to say. EVERY person that receives social welfare does not pay the taxes that fund it. Every person receiving social welfare funded at the State level does not pay the taxes that fund it.

sorry to inform you welfare checks are taxed just like yours or mine is... look it up yourself

In theory, as you know, their income is so low they pay no income taxes.

But as we have seen pay plenty of other taxes duh. And pay STATE income taxes.

NOT if you're smart "duh" and chose to live in a state WITHOUT an income tax. Another reason I live in Florida, aside from the ocean, gulf and weather. Then there is the fact that we have had Republicans in charge of the state so our state budget is in line, we're not in massive debt and our state retirement system for state workers is in excellent condition.

 

[sealybobo]

You said:

and

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.

I can not stand this thread title and wish you'd stop being suckered into advancing it.

This is classic Republicans trying to control the message.

Do Republicans think corporations should be tax free like churches?

You've got it wrong.The last several posts weren't advancing the title of the thread at all. But I do sympathize with you. The thread was started by a troll and his troll friends have been desperately trying to keep it alive. I feel ya, bro.

I started another thread, "do Republicans think corporations should pay no taxes" and they're having a hard time admitting it.

Damn it! By replying to you and you me we are advancing this thread. Come find my thread. We control the message not them.

BTW they say corporations should pay 15% and so should everyone. Is that fair? Would it work? Don't reply here. Fuck this thread it bothers the hell out of me. Dumb cons

I know you mean well Sealy but I'm not going to be controlled by ANYBODY, that includes you. I may or may not respond here. Its my choice. But thanks for the support any way. Hope there are no hard feelings.

Not at all. Im asking not telling. Just a suggestion. And i dont really care i just like shutting down right wing threads that push a bullshit premise. In my thread I'm asking if Republicans believe corporations should pay no taxes. See, this thread is bs because we don't want to tax corporations more unless we find out they aren't paying their fair share. We found out GE isn't paying taxes. So Republican idiots, please tell me you don't think ge should pay more than zero.

 

[JQPublic1]

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:
  
  
• 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.

I can not stand this thread title and wish you'd stop being suckered into advancing it.

This is classic Republicans trying to control the message.

Do Republicans think corporations should be tax free like churches?

You've got it wrong.The last several posts weren't advancing the title of the thread at all. But I do sympathize with you. The thread was started by a troll and his troll friends have been desperately trying to keep it alive. I feel ya, bro.

I started another thread, "do Republicans think corporations should pay no taxes" and they're having a hard time admitting it.

Damn it! By replying to you and you me we are advancing this thread. Come find my thread. We control the message not them.

BTW they say corporations should pay 15% and so should everyone. Is that fair? Would it work? Don't reply here. Fuck this thread it bothers the hell out of me. Dumb cons

I know you mean well Sealy but I'm not going to be controlled by ANYBODY, that includes you. I may or may not respond here. Its my choice. But thanks for the support any way. Hope there are no hard feelings.

Not at all. Im asking not telling. Just a suggestion. And i dont really care i just like shutting down right wing threads that push a bullshit premise. In my thread I'm asking if Republicans believe corporations should pay no taxes. See, this thread is bs because we don't want to tax corporations more unless we find out they aren't paying their fair share. We found out GE isn't paying taxes. So Republican idiots, please tell me you don't think ge should pay more than zero.

Provide a link to your thread so I can take a look-see!

 

[sealybobo]

I can not stand this thread title and wish you'd stop being suckered into advancing it.

This is classic Republicans trying to control the message.

Do Republicans think corporations should be tax free like churches?

You've got it wrong.The last several posts weren't advancing the title of the thread at all. But I do sympathize with you. The thread was started by a troll and his troll friends have been desperately trying to keep it alive. I feel ya, bro.

I started another thread, "do Republicans think corporations should pay no taxes" and they're having a hard time admitting it.

Damn it! By replying to you and you me we are advancing this thread. Come find my thread. We control the message not them.

BTW they say corporations should pay 15% and so should everyone. Is that fair? Would it work? Don't reply here. Fuck this thread it bothers the hell out of me. Dumb cons

I know you mean well Sealy but I'm not going to be controlled by ANYBODY, that includes you. I may or may not respond here. Its my choice. But thanks for the support any way. Hope there are no hard feelings.

Not at all. Im asking not telling. Just a suggestion. And i dont really care i just like shutting down right wing threads that push a bullshit premise. In my thread I'm asking if Republicans believe corporations should pay no taxes. See, this thread is bs because we don't want to tax corporations more unless we find out they aren't paying their fair share. We found out GE isn't paying taxes. So Republican idiots, please tell me you don't think ge should pay more than zero.

Provide a link to your thread so I can take a look-see!

I can't on smart phone. Just do search for threads I've started. It's the last one. And it's probably current in the politics thread.

"Do Republicans think corporations should pay no taxes"

I just hate the title of this thread. How many times do we have to explain or have this conversation? So let's control the conversation. What tax would Republicans be happy with? I've heard 0-15%. Andy admitted he wants zero. Apparently he cares about his companies profits more than his wages.

 

[francoHFW]

If corps don't pay, who does, dupe?

Tax consumption is hard to say...who uses infrastructure the most? Etc etc etc....The point is, who's laughing to the bank? Who's losing? see sig.

Consumption isn't hard to say. EVERY person that receives social welfare does not pay the taxes that fund it. Every person receiving social welfare funded at the State level does not pay the taxes that fund it.

sorry to inform you welfare checks are taxed just like yours or mine is... look it up yourself

In theory, as you know, their income is so low they pay no income taxes.

But as we have seen pay plenty of other taxes duh. And pay STATE income taxes.

NOT if you're smart "duh" and chose to live in a state WITHOUT an income tax. Another reason I live in Florida, aside from the ocean, gulf and weather. Then there is the fact that we have had Republicans in charge of the state so our state budget is in line, we're not in massive debt and our state retirement system for state workers is in excellent condition.

Irrelevant to argument. And LOL. So you're a state worker? Real stand up independant GOP guy lol...