Better Off Deadbeat: Craig Cunningham Has a Simple Solution for Getting Bill Collectors Off His Back. He Sues Them.
Cunningham armed himself with this knowledge, and the next time a debt collector called, the trap was set.
It didn't take long. Cunningham had canceled a home alarm service with ADT Security after two months, and the company had billed him a $450 early termination fee, which he disputed. ADT sent his account to Equinox Financial Management Solutions, a third-party debt collector. The collection agency sent him a letter asking that he call back immediately. He dialed, armed with a voice recorder.
"Can you garnish my wages if I don't pay?" he asked.
"Yes," the voice on the other end of the line said.
"Can you put a lien on my house?"
"Yes."
Wrong answers. Turns out, Texas consumer rights laws are some of the most consumer-friendly in the country. And according to a federal consumer protection law, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), debt collectors are prohibited from threatening legal action that would violate state laws. In this case, garnishing wages or putting a lien on Cunningham's house would violate the Texas Debt Collection Act.
Cunningham knew he had a good enough case to file a lawsuit against the debt collection agency, and for his first lawsuit, he decided to enlist the help of a lawyer. Two months later, he had a check in his hand for $1,000.
"It's like discovering fire," says Cunningham, thumbing through the stack of lawsuit papers on his table.
....
Like Cunningham, Smith now armed himself with voice recorders and began keeping meticulous financial files. His file cabinet grew quickly. "I mean there's nothing I don't document now and that's probably the best thing a consumer can do."
Find out the laws in your state and take action. This is not a bad idea.
Elizabeth Warren On The Daily Show: If We Don’t Act ‘The Game Really Is Over’
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Elizabeth Warren | ||||
|
||||
I've always liked Elizabeth Warren because she is right.
Just as I posted earlier, people are waking up to the fact that politics is theatre and that politicians do not represent us (at least most of them). It's angering but it's important to get a third party or more going in America.
My solution to making third parties real is laws stating that all elections are to be instant run-off. Instead of voting for one candidate, you prioritize them. If the one you chose first doesn't have enough votes your next in line is thus counted as your choice. So, you could have voted in the last Presidential Election like this
- Ron Paul
- Cynthia McKinney
- Ralph Nader
- Dennis Kucinich
- Barack Obama
How sweet would that be? If none of your other choices had a chance, you still could have helped to defend against McCain (or visa versa). You could actually vote based on your principles instead of the lesser of two evils. If course it must be said that our political party election system is more like voting for the one evil as they really are the same party with different faces. I ask you, what would McCain have done substantially different from Obama? And how is Obama any different than Bush?
Democrats And The 60 Vote Lie
It seems that people are starting to get it that politics is just a theatre for thieves to profiteer but for very few. This is particularly disturbing now knowing that the Conservative Supreme Court just gave corporations nearly full access to politicians through money. This will utterly drown out everyone else. This means laws will, wait, will? THEY ARE being made for the benefit of corporations because it keeps the corrupt in power. Ad-Infinitum.
We absolutely must pass a constitutional amendment stating this:
Reclaim Democracy: Proposed Constitutional Amendments
An Amendment to Preclude Corporations from Claiming Bill of Rights Protections
SECTION 1. The U.S. Constitution protects only the rights of living human beings.
SECTION 2. Corporations and other institutions granted the privilege to exist shall be subordinate to any and all laws enacted by citizens and their elected governments.
SECTION 3. Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.
SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.
More on why we need to revoke corporate constitutional privileges (a.k.a., corporate personhood)
Of course, no crooked Republican or Democrat (which is most of them) in their right mind would vote for this lest their corporate master overlords wrath. Then the states very likely wouldn't pass it either.
Corporate Personhood: First Amendment Rights
Supreme Court OKs unlimited corporate spending on elections
Reporting from Washington - Overturning a century-old restriction, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations could spend as much as they wanted to sway voters in federal elections.
In a landmark 5-4 decision, the court's conservative bloc said that corporations had the same right to free speech as individuals, and for that reason the government could not stop corporations from spending to help their favored candidates.
The ruling, which will presumably apply as well to labor unions and other organizations, is likely to have an effect on this year's congressional elections. Many political analysts and election-law experts predict that millions of extra dollars will flood into this fall's contests, much of it benefiting Republican candidates.
Republicans praised the decision as a victory for wide-open political speech, but Democrats slammed it as a win for big money.
President Obama called the ruling "a major victory for Big Oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." He promised to seek "a forceful response to this decision" from Congress. Some Democrats talked about seeking legislation that would require corporations to get approval from their shareholders before spending money on politics.
...
Until Thursday, corporations and unions were barred from spending their treasury funds on broadcast ads, campaign workers or billboards that urge the election or defeat of a federal candidate.The restriction dates to 1907, when President Theodore Roosevelt persuaded Congress to forbid corporations, railroads and national banks from putting money into federal races. After World War II, Congress extended the ban to labor unions. More recently, the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002 added an extra limit on corporate and union-funded broadcast ads in the month before an election. Such ads were prohibited if they even mentioned a candidate running for office.
Thursday's decision swept away all of these restrictions.
"The government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity," said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion. While the case of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission dealt only with corporations, the ruling will probably also free unions to spend as they wish.
Two significant prohibitions were left standing. Corporations and unions cannot give money directly to the campaigns of federal candidates, or to political parties. And the court affirmed the requirement that sponsors of political ads disclose who paid for them. Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented on these points.
Thursday's decision was supported by five justices who were Republican nominees: Kennedy and Thomas along with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
The dissenters included the three Democratic appointees: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. They joined a 90-page dissenting opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who was appointed by President Ford, a Republican. Stevens, who will turn 90 in April, spoke in a halting voice as he read part of his dissent in the courtroom Thursday.
He called the decision "a radical change in the law." He predicted that the ruling would "cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress and the states to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process."
The decision displayed a deep division of opinion on the court about the meaning of the 1st Amendment and the freedom of speech.
...
Stevens and the dissenters said that the majority was ignoring the long-understood rule that the government could limit election money from corporations, unions and others, such as foreign governments."Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments" would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to tilt U.S. elections, Stevens said.
...
When his(this) case first reached the Supreme Court, the conservative justices voiced alarm that the government could restrict a movie, or perhaps a book, that criticized a candidate simply because it was paid for with corporate money. In September, they heard the case for a second time to broadly consider the issue of corporate-funded election ads.Chief Justice Roberts said he was convinced that a broad free-speech ruling was required. Otherwise, it "would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern."
I have so many issues with this that it felt like someone kicked me in the chest. Watching this move through the system was worrisome. This decision has only further solidified the fascist take over of our republic.
I wrote about corporate personhood last year during Sotomayor's admission into the court. She is very much questioning not just first amendment rights but giving any constitutional rights to corporations.
Once again, the strict constructionist conservative wing of the Supreme Court threw out their ideals and voted to further corporate power and it's take-over of our government. It's *($%^ infectious. It's growing and they have bastardized the US Constitution again.
This is how the strict constructionists strayed to lands beyond from their ideals. Strict Constructionists
"Strict constructionism" is also used in American political discourse as an umbrella term for conservative legal philosophies such as originalism and textualism, which emphasize judicial restraint and fidelity to the original meaning (or originally intended meaning) of constitutions and laws.
The original intent of the constitution nor the 14th Amendment never even considered corporations as actual people. If they had intended Corporations to have the same constitutional rights as individuals they would have written "People and Corporations" throughout the document. In fact, before corporations had personhood, they needed a charter for organization which needed to be continually renewed by each state. That is the original intent of the Constitution.
There are a few arguments for it:
- Investor protection
- Management protection
There are so many arguments against it:
- They have a LOT money, translating into more and more effective speech for corporations
- They enjoy more rights in the form of lower tax rates and then just on profit. This is like taxing Caucasians 20% and everyone else 25%. Secondly, imagine if actual people were only taxed on what we "save" because all living costs were tax deductible? Also, imagine states fighting for your citizenship by giving you incentives like no state taxes for 10 years? These corporate "people" have preferential laws.
- It is a form of double representation. The investors are already represented as themselves. They vote and can put their own money towards a campaign. If you invest in a company but want another canditate to win other than what is being supported by the corporation, then the corporation is not accurately representing you.
- Corporations make false claims and representations. They use their First Amendment Rights to do great harm to the people. A great example of this is the Tobacco and Cigarette Industry claiming that smoking was safe and funding skewed studies.
- Financial Ratings companies like Standard & Poor and Moody say that their financial ratings are opinion and protected by the First Amendment. So, when they rated toxic assets as AAA they had no liability to their word even though the entire financial industry depends on these ratings accuracy. Giving them accountability may actually force them to give securities proper ratings.
- The Constitution cannot be cherry-picked. A real person cannot only have some right in the constitution. A person MUST have all rights. The problem is that corporations are slaves and cannot vote, to name two important conflicts with corporations having the full rights of the constitution.
- A corporation legally must maximize shareholder value. This is the highest law to the corporation and can even be sued by shareholders if found to not be doing this. These include things that could be "to the detriment of people." Corporations do not have the same priorities as actual people who exist in reality. Two or three times a day, we eat. Without sufficient food we die. Corporations don't have these daily existential crises
Solutions:
- Force the court to explain why corporations don't have full First Amendment Rights as people do. Corporations are "artificial people" after all. Justice Clarence Thomas had the clarity to at least do away with this contradiction.
- Force the court to tell us how corporations are not slaves.
- Force the court to tell us how corporations will participate in voting during an election.
- Force the court to tell us how a corporation can use a firearm without any other person helping.
- Force the court to tell us how a corporation can be conscripted into a war if we re-instate the draft.
- Force the court to tell us why corporations younger than 21 can possess alcohol.
- Force the court to tell us why corporations don't have identification cards like passports or driver licenses.
- Force the court to tell us how to imprison a corporation in a jail.
- Force the court to tell us why corporations owned by foreign entities, including foreign governments, can have rights under our constitution.
Any answers to these questions are purely rationalizations.
I don't believe any of this can be done because a corporation by itself cannot think, learn, or feel. It cannot be thrown in jail for the lack of physical presence. It cannot pull a lever in a voting booth nor mark any paper. A corporation does not need food or water. It doesn't even need toilet paper. It does not need to breath and cannot ever be hospitalized. A corporation never came out of a vagina (or c-section) nor must it eventually die. It cannot use a firearm. It is not conscious and can only act through proxies.
or we could just,
Remove corporate personhood. Singapore doesn't have corporate personhood and, while investment and growth is hampered, it still has a thriving economy where the risk of corporations is priced, truly, into its market value.
I'm not quite sure how corporate protection should look but we can cross that bridge when we get to it.
My last point is that this ruling clearly flies in the face of stare-decisis. This was an important aspect to confirming the Supreme Court Judges Alito and Roberts in the Judiciary Committee of Congress.
Aggressive Atheism
Only we don't call it ignorant, we call it faith.
The confrontation is exactly what fundamental religion is about. Everyone else needs to tell them that intolerance is just unacceptable. While this sounds rhetorically paradoxical, it's actually not. Singling out one industry is not saying anything else about any other industry of ideas. If it is defined that the banking industry is a problem, it's not saying anything about the farm industry. It's own problems are independent. Other industries may have similar problems or even identical problems, that doesn't mean the solution is the same. All I'm saying is that things need to be looked at with a finer tooth comb. You can't take one problem or one solution as being invariant.
This is a guy who is purposefully looking for reaction. If your reaction is positive or if it is negative, I suggest that you look at this with more than just your emotions. Listen, because these is an important message here.
One section of population believes in their own. The other believes in all else. This goes far beyond religion. It goes to the head of government. Obama doesn't see all else. The place where people are loosing homes, cars, retirement, life, and limb. This is a place where becoming the scare crow is not just a suggestion but a requirement.
Don't just be but do.
32% Inflation in UCLA Tuition Causes Near Riots (14 Arrested, 1 Tasered)
This is HUGE. This is why:
Recession Still Causing Trouble for States
Although the recovery package is mitigating states’ fiscal problems, states are continuing to cut services like education and health care as they implement 2010 budgets. Additional cuts are likely for 2011. To date at least 42 states have addressed their shortfalls by reducing services to their residents, including some of their most vulnerable families and individuals. Cuts to state services not only harm vulnerable residents but also worsen the recession by reducing overall economic activity.
...
At least 48 states addressed or are facing shortfalls in their budgets for the new fiscal year totaling $190 billion or 28 percent of state budgets.
...
To keep pace with the cost of services, state revenues must grow. But overall revenues last year were essentially flat and have weakened dramatically this year. The U.S. Census Bureau reports state tax collections fell 17 percent in the second quarter of 2009 compared with last year — the worst decline ever.Sales taxes are the largest source of state tax revenue, and they are declining due to the fall in both personal consumption and business purchases. Income taxes and other taxes are also falling as wages and investment income decline. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, income tax collections during the second quarter of this year fell by 28 percent compared to the same period last year. Continued job losses will depress revenues further.
Basically, all state funded education institutions are looking down the barrel of this gun. This could be further exasperated by any corrections in the market that impact school endowments.
The point is that all institutions, companies, and individuals need to scale back. Our wealth is evaporating. It is being squandered on failed bailouts to failed companies. These actions are not creating jobs and this directly affects those in higher education because when the students are done with school... there are no places left for them except back home. Is an education worth it at this point? Being straddled with student debt for the next 30 years is not going to create wealth in the US.
This is just the beginning people. Things can only get worse as our dollar is intentionally or unintentionally devalued.
If the federal government decided tomorrow that it won't be paying interest on its own debt money to the Federal Reserve, there would be enough cash for US government to finance all the state deficits twice over without any impact. We could also stop these pointless wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Drugs, etc) and pay for the state deficits 6-10 times over without having to monetize the gap. Also, instead of supporting fascism in America, would could let capitalism run free and let failed companies actually fail like they are supposed to. That bailout money could have financed state deficits 6-8 times over. If you use the real projections of $10 trillion that would be 100 times over.
What do we have to show for the bailouts? Well, a good number of those companies are going bad again and rightly so... their failed business model was never fixed with the bailouts. They only got some limited life support. The rest of us get our daily prozac from TV. Awesome.
Mean while, we are trying to stop the actual, and direly needed, correction. If it takes a depression to fix things then I'm all for it. The longer we put off the pain the worse it will be. If Greenspan stopped making bubbles in the 90s then that resulting recession would have been worse but we wouldn't be in this situation.
So, my heart goes out to the students at UCLA... and, soon, all the students in America.
1933 is to 2009 as Apples are to Apples- Ron Paul of the Great Depression
Louis Thomas McFadden (July 25, 1876 – October 1, 1936) was a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Pennsylvania.
...
McFadden's main official legacy was the working on and the passing of the McFadden Act of 1927 limiting federal branch banks to the city in which the main branch operates. The Act sought to give national banks competitive equality with state-chartered banks by letting national banks branch to the extent permitted by state law. The McFadden Act specifically prohibited interstate branching by allowing national banks to branch only within the state in which it is situated. Although the Riegel-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 repealed this provision of the McFadden Act, it specified that state law continues to control intrastate branching, or branching within a state's borders, for both state and national banks
...
McFadden is also remembered for his criticism of the Federal Reserve, which he claimed was created and operated by European banking interests who conspired to economically control the United States. On June 10, 1932, McFadden made a 25-minute speech before the House of Representatives[2] , in which he accused the Federal Reserve of deliberately causing the Great Depression. McFadden also claimed that Wall Street bankers funded the Bolshevik Revolution through the Federal Reserve banks and the European central banks with which it cooperated. McFadden moved to impeach President Herbert Hoover in 1932, and also introduced a resolution bringing conspiracy charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. The impeachment resolution was defeated by a vote of 361 to 8; it was seen as a big vote of confidence to President Hoover from the HouseIn 1933, he introduced House Resolution No. 158, articles of impeachment for the Secretary of the Treasury, two assistant Secretaries of the Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, and the officers and directors of its twelve regional banks.
McFadden died in 1936 on a visit to New York City and was interred in East Canton Cemetery in Canton, Pennsylvania.
Speculation of foul play has risen regarding McFaddens death. Some conspiracy theorists have proposed that he was poisoned as the result of his attempt to impeach members of the central bank in the United States
This battle between the Federal Reserve and the people is not new. It's been going on since the Federal Reserve was established. Louis McFadden was just like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich in their warning of central banking and monetary policy.
The Federal Reserve accused of Treason in 1934
Congressman McFadden on the Federal Reserve Corporation
Remarks in Congress, 1934
AN ASTOUNDING EXPOSUREMr. McFadden, due to his having served as Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee for
more than 10 years, was the best posted man on these matters in America and was in a position to speak with authority of the vast ramifications of this gigantic private credit monopoly.
...
(The Speech)
"Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over."This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.
"Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.
...
the Wilson administration, under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House, established here in our free Country the worm-eaten monarchical institution of the "King's Bank" to control us from the top downward, and from the cradle to the grave.
...
"One of the greatest battles for the preservation of this Republic was fought out here in Jackson's time; when the second Bank of the United States, founded on the same false principles of those which are here exemplified in the Fed was hurled out of existence.
...
"The danger that the Country was warned against came upon us and is shown in the long train of horrors attendant upon the affairs of the traitorous and dishonest Fed. Look around you when you leave this Chamber and you will see evidences of it in all sides. This is an era of misery and for the conditions that caused that misery, the Fed are fully liable. This is an era of financed crime and in the financing of crime the Fed does not play the part of a disinterested spectator.
...
"In eighteen years that have passed since Senator Lodge wrote that letter of warning all of his predictions have come true. The Government is in the banking business as never before. Against its will it has been made the backer of horse thieves and card sharps, bootlegger's smugglers, speculators, and swindlers in all parts of the world. Through the Fed the riffraff of every country is operating on the public credit of the United States Government.
...
"Recently in one of our States, 60,000 dwelling houses and farms were brought under the hammer in a single day. 71,000 houses and farms in Oakland County, Michigan, were sold and their erstwhile owners dispossessed. The people who have thus been driven out are the wastage of the Fed. They are the victims of the Fed. Their children are the new slaves of the auction blocks in the revival of the institution of human slavery.
...
"The Fed Note is essentially unsound. It is the worst currency and the most dangerous that this Country has ever known.
...
"Hon. L.J.Hill, a former member of the House, said, and truly: "They are obligations of the Government for which the United States received nothing and for the payment of which at any time, it assumes the responsibility: looking to the Fed to recoup itself.'
...
By making money artificially scarce, interest rates throughout the Country can be arbitrarily raised and the bank tax on all business and cost of living increased for the profit of the banks owning these regional central banks, and without the slightest benefit to the people
...
Is it any wonder that American labor which ultimately pays the cost of all banking operations of this Country has at last proved unequal to the task of supplying this huge total of cash and credit for the benefit of the stock market manipulators and foreign swindlers?
...
"Are you going to let these thieves get off scot free? Is there one law for the looter who drives up to the door of the United States Treasury in his limousine and another for the United States Veterans who are sleeping on the floor of a dilapidated house on the outskirts of Washington?
...
"Mr. Chairman, last December, I introduced a resolution here asking for an examination and an audit of the Fed and all related matters. If the House sees fit to make such an investigation, the people of these United States will obtain information of great value. This is a Government of the people, by the people, for the people. Consequently, nothing should be concealed from the people. The man who deceives the people is a traitor to these United States."The man who knows or suspects that a crime has been committed and who conceals and covers up that crime is an accessory to it. Mr. Speaker, it is a monstrous thing for this great nation of people to have its destinies presided over by a traitorous government board acting in secret concert with international usurers.
"Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers- but the truth is- the Fed has usurped the Government. It controls everything here and it controls all of our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will.
...
"The people of these United States are being greatly wronged. They have been driven from their employments. They have been dispossessed from their homes. They have been evicted from their rented quarters. They have lost their children. They have been left to suffer and die for lack of shelter, food, clothing and medicine.
...
"The wealth of these United States and the working capital have been taken away from them and has either been locked in the vaults of certain banks and the great corporations or exported to foreign countries for the benefit of the foreign customers of these banks and corporations. So far as the people of the United States are concerned, the cupboard is bare."It is true that the warehouses and coal yards and grain elevators are full, but these are padlocked, and the great banks and corporations hold the keys.
"The sack of these United States by the Fed is the greatest crime in history.
...
"What is needed here is a return to the Constitution of these United States.
...
"The Fed should be repealed, and the Fed Banks, having violated their charters, should be liquidated immediately. Faithless Government officials who have violated their oaths of office should be impeached and brought to trial."Unless this is done by us, I predict, that the American people, outraged, pillaged, insulted and betrayed as they are in their own land, will rise in their wrath, and will sweep the money changers out of the temple.
"Mr. Chairman, the United States is bankrupt: It has been bankrupted by the corrupt and dishonest Fed. It has repudiated its debts to its own citizens.
...
"(The Federal Reserve Note) is the money of slaves, not of free men.
...
"They likewise entered into a conspiracy to deprive the people of the U.S. of their title to the war debts and not being able to do that in the way they intended, they are now engaged in an effort to debase the American dollar
...
"The U.S. Treasury cannot be made liable for them. The Fed currency must be redeemed by the Fed banks or else these Fed banks must be liquidated.
...
"Whereas, I charge. . . (many, many names), Federal Reserve Agents, jointly and severally, with violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and whereas I charge them with having taken funds from the U.S Treasury which were not appropriated by the Congress of the United States, and I charge them with having unlawfully taken over $80,000,000,000 from the U.S. Government in the year 1928, the said unlawful taking consisting of the unlawful creation of claims against the U.S. Treasury to the extent of over $80,000,000,000 in the year 1928; and I charge them with similar thefts committed in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933, and in years previous to 1928, amounting to billions of dollars;
...
"Whereas I charge them, jointly and severally, with the crime of having treasonable conspired and acted against the peace and security of the U.S. and with having treasonable conspired to destroy constitutional Government in the U.S.
This was even when the US Dollar was backed by gold! It's a remarkable testament that we don't learn from history.
I believe it's time to start looking to accuse our Representatives as criminally compliant with the Federal Reserve who don't vote for Auditing the Federal Reserve.
Will we learn this time? Will we audit and eliminate the Fed?
Banks Screwing Customers Before New Laws Take Effect
Credit Card Rates: Banks Plan To RAISE Rates, Annual Fees
Banks expect to tighten terms on credit cards in response to a new law that aims to protect consumers from sudden rate hikes, the Federal Reserve said Monday.
A quarterly survey by the Fed found that many banks expect to increase rates, reduce credit limits and raise annual fees for both prime borrowers – those with sound credit histories _as well as more risky "non-prime" borrowers, who have tarnished credit. Banks also expected to raise minimum credit scores for non-prime borrowers, the Fed said.
Banks already have been pushing through rate increases in anticipation of the new rules.
...
Most of the new credit card provisions are slated to take effect on Feb. 22.
...
They want banks to boost lending, but no one wants a return to the lax standards that many blame for contributing to the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.
Credit-card countdown: Higher rates abound
If you're one of the millions of Americans holding a credit card, this isn't necessarily news: Credit-card issuers are hiking interest rates, penalties and fees in full force ahead of stringent new laws that take effect in February.
In fact, some 400 credit cards from the nation's 12 largest bank issuers -- accounting for 90% of the $89.8 billion in outstanding consumer credit -- are still using most of the same tactics that the Federal Reserve has called "unfair or deceptive" and that will be outlawed in fewer than four months, according to a new report from the Pew Health Group's Safe Credit Cards Project.
"Until the law takes effect we're seeing that all the major credit-card issuers on the bank side are continuing to engage in these unfair and deceptive practices," said Nick Bourke, project manager of the Safe Credit Card Project.
...
"Some of (those interest-rate and fee hikes) occurred because of the economic environment we're in," Bourke admitted. "But the timing is pegged at getting a lot of changes in before the bill takes effect."
...
(Losses)
J.P. Morgan Chase - credit-card division lost $700 million in the third quarter and expects losses to be higher next year
Bank of America - loss $1.04 billion in the third quarter
Citi Holdings - which includes the private-label cards, mortgages and other consumer loans, showed a $1.9 billion quarterly loss.
...
Credit-card companies recognize the pain they are inflicting on many consumers. "We understand that customers don't like price increases, especially in difficult economic times," Citi said in a statement. "However, these actions are necessary given the doubling of credit card losses across the industry from customers not paying back their loans and regulatory changes that eliminate repricing for that risk."
It goes on to say that annual fees are going up too.
You could say the banks are losing butt loads of money on credit cards and that the only way to maintain a business is for them to earn more. Is it really fair to screw customers for their own relaxed standards that got them into this mess? Hell no. The banks got themselves into this mess, and I'm not about to help them get out of it. Just because a bunch of people can't or don't pay their credit card bills doesn't mean I need to be stuck with their bill. No way. No how.
I checked my APR this evening and they increased it by 30% from where it was a few months ago. I called and ripped them a new one. They claim that corporate made the changes and customer service has no control over it. I'm not making any more purchases on that card any more!
I may only marginally affect their bottom line, but I'm going to do my part to enhance their losses by not using their card. Screw those corrupt fuckers. They don't have a problem screwing you.
Harrods to sell gold bullion for first time
Harrods to sell gold bullion for first time
In a sign that the credit crisis has left his gilded customer base largely untouched, Harrods owner Mohamed Fayed has teamed up with Produits Artistiques Métaux Précieux (PAMP), the Swiss refiner, to sell gold in the store.
Aimed at private investors, the gold will be sold at the Harrods Bank branch on the lower ground floor of the West London store.
Mehdi Bakhordar, managing director of PAMP, said: "Harrods stock our full range and are now the only location in London where investors can purchase a 12.5kg gold bar 'off the shelf'."
Harrods, famed for its gold and green livery, has never sold bullion before.
This is an AMAZING move by Harrods. It shows that wealthy people are very worried about the value of fiat currency. It shows that companies are recognizing this fact and providing the market place with supply because the demand is there. It shows that companies are starting to not believe, or at least not care, what the government is saying.
How long before the merely well-to-do people start understanding, seeing, or copying what the wealthy are doing?
So, a 12.5kg gold bar weighs 27.6 lbs. That's 440.923 oz. At the going market rate of about $1100/oz, that bar costs $485,016.98. Harrod's is also going to mark it up to for profit. Imagine walking in and charging half a million dollars to your credit card and walking out with a gold bar in a suit case? Would Harrod's be kind enough to drive the bar around in a security truck to your destination of choice?
The Investor Revolution
I've been wondering recently why stock market investors don't have much power over companies. This explains it very well.
From what i understand this bill allows investors to have some say in selecting board members. This is a FANTASTIC idea. This is how private corporations work. The owners have a say. Any venture capital firm will tell you that this is how they operate. Companies aren't just allowed to do what they want without the owners authorization. This bill essentially brings this mentality to publicly traded companies. How good is it? Well, it sounds awesome and is a great start toward restoring capitalism in the economy.
A few other ideas i had regarding investor ownership. Remove corporate personhood. This would make investors responsible for corporate actions... both good and bad. A rising stock price is worth being an active investor. Another idea i had was an investor union. This would allow investors to have one or a set of representatives within the company. I'm not sure exactly how it would work but maybe an investor tax on the company like a penny per outstanding share per year to pay for this union. Shrug. just an idea. Maybe have a Chief Investor Outreach Officer. Anyway. Please register and comment on other methods of controlling corporations.
I'm also fond of making all health insurance companies into non-profit entities. This would remove the profit motive and allow them to focus on the health motive.
The most interesting thing to ponder is what would happen if investors really had a say in public companies.
- Green investors would love to buy big oil and convert them, for their own good, into future energy providers of solar, wind, and ocean. (I'd even buy some shares in Exxon-Mobil to help this happen!!). Yeah, it may be expensive but it's better than not being forward thinking, letting the companies fail, or worse, bailing them out.
- Investors could demand that companies split up to create more jobs if deemed too big to fail
Basically, investors have their lives to draw upon in making decisions, not just their pocket books. This could inject a longer term view into corporate culture.
There could be harm done, but investors would have to keep each other in check just as they need to keep the board and management in check.
Government was designed around three branches for checks and balances. Companies should be designed around this same model of checks and balances. Management (like the White House), Board of Directors (like the Court system), and Investors (like Congress). There are similarities but there are also differences. Regardless, three is better than two for checks and balances.
For example, just look at our two party political system and how corrupted by money and influence it has become. A third party candidate could provide a much need breath of fresh air, but also the balance to keep the Republicrats focused on the benefit of the people. This is why I believe we should institute all elections as instant run off voting. People wouldn't be afraid to vote their real values instead of the lesser of two evils.