Democrats are not just like Republicans

[editec]

Democrats are not just like Republicans

ABsolutely right!

For partisans one is the BAD cop and the other the GOOD cop.

Hence they have chosen different things (that don't much matter to either of them) to pretend make them significantly different.

But as to the things that really matter to them (read to their masters) there's precious little difference between them.

Hey, I don't like that, any more than you do, Sealy, because like you I was once a very active and loyal DEM.

But fourty years of watching these two parties and the legislation they have passed, leaves me with very little choice but to conclude that when push comes to shove, there's too little difference to matter.

Here's a tipoff, too.

Waiting in the wings are two other SHAM parties...the greens and the libertarians.

If they are ever in positions of power, you can expect the same game to be played.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs committee passed the Dodd-Levin Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act, S.414).

This legislation will put an end to a host of deceptive and unjust credit card practices that impose additional financial hardship on consumers who are doing their best to stay afloat.

This legislation seeks to put an end to unfair credit card practices that mire millions of American families in debt. The Dodd-Levin CARD Act results in part from an ongoing investigation into abusive credit card practices I initiated as the Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. In May 2007, in response to the abuses brought to light as a result of this investigation, I introduced the Stop Unfair Practices in Credit Cards Act (S.1395). I am pleased that nearly all of the provisions from S.1395 have been included in the CARD Act of 2009.

The landmark bill approved by the Banking Committee earlier this week would ban the most egregious credit card practices that are unfairly deepening or prolonging credit card debt for many consumers. Under this legislation, for example, credit card companies would be prohibited from applying higher interest rates retroactively to existing credit card debt, hiking interest rates on customers who pay on time, and collecting interest on credit card debts that were repaid on time. In addition, this bill would crack down on unreasonable fees, including repeated late fees, over-the-limit fees, and fees to pay your bill, and would prohibit charging interest on those fees. It would also prohibit so-called “universal default” interest rate hikes in which a credit card company hikes a cardholder’s interest rate for reasons unrelated to the account held with that company. It would also make sure that cardholders get their bills 21 days before the bill is due and give them until 5:00 p.m. on the due date to make a payment.

I have called on the full Senate to pass the Dodd-Levin CARD Act as soon as possible. At a time when working people are struggling, common sense credit card reform is essential to protect American families from unfair fees and interest charges.

You can view both my press release on committee passage at []Technical difficulties. and my statement upon introduction of this bill at []Technical difficulties..
Sincerely,
Carl Levin

Hey GREAT JOB! Super... This should put an end to the Credit Card problem once and for all...

Of course, it will put an end to, or significantly alter the means of 'the poor' to access such cards... and what do ya suppose Mr. Levin et al will have to say when the Credit card Biz stops lending to that sacred cow...

We have some history to look upon that tells us what they'll say. I mean the Mortgage biz stopped lending to certain districts where the poor lived; and this because those districts had TERRIBLE records of repayment and one ideology or another came along and said something... what was that they said and who was it?

Does anyone remember who that was or what they said and did?
.
.
.
.
Oh YEAH!

The Federal Reserve came along and said it was a violation of their civil rights... that banks could NOT 'just not lend to them'; because they were of a protected class... And let's see... what happened there?

I know SOMETHING happened, but it was SO long ago...

What happened when the Federal Reserve and the Congressional Caucus of Communists who just happen to be black, along with Bawney Fwank... DEMANDED that the Mortgage industry set aside sound actuarial lending thresholds and lend to THE POOR and then used quasi-private/ Federal banks to guarantee those loans?

Anyone remember how that worked out?

But I'm SURE that this manipulation of the Credit Markets by the Radical Left in the US Legislature will work out MUCH BETTER... because it's not at ALL like the other thingy... I mean it's credit CARD debt... Not Home Mortgages...

I doubt that this will extend the Recession of... When does the Left say this Recession started? 2007? Yeah I think that was it... SO I REALLY doubt that THIS manipulation of the Credit Markets will EXTEND, prolong, buttress or otherwise preclude the recovery from the 2007 Recession...

And to those who think that THIS is ANYTHING like the DEPRESSION... GET REAL... The Depression lasted 12 YEARS! And this one's only lasted 2 years so far... and just because this one's lasted 6 months longer and is exponentially deeper, with a 50% loss in the equity markets (with no actual signs of improvement) than any recession in the 48 years of my life, doesn't mean that the INCREDIBLE MANIPULATION OF THE PRIVATE MARKETS BY THE PROGRESSIVE FISCAL POLICY of the FED and LEFTISTS IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT...

I'm sure that gross manipulation of the credit card markets, voiding contracts which were legally advanced and agreed to by BOTH PARTIES will work out JUST FINE with no really nasty 'UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES...' And even if it does... ITS THEIR INTENTIONS THAT COUNT... NOT THE RESULTS.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Democrats are not just like Republicans

ABsolutely right!

For partisans one is the BAD cop and the other the GOOD cop.

Hence they have chosen different things (that don't much matter to either of them) to pretend make them significantly different.

But as to the things that really matter to them (read to their masters) there's precious little difference between them.

Hey, I don't like that, any more than you do, Sealy, because like you I was once a very active and loyal DEM.

But fourty years of watching these two parties and the legislation they have passed, leaves me with very little choice but to conclude that when push comes to shove, there's too little difference to matter.

Here's a tipoff, too.

Waiting in the wings are two other SHAM parties...the greens and the libertarians.

If they are ever in positions of power, you can expect the same game to be played.

We should print this off and send it to each Legislator; along with a copy of "Mr. Smith goes to Wasington."

And let them, particularly the GOP see what their assinine attempt at comity and the 'new tone' has bought them... they've so muddled the line of distinction by stepping on the simple principles of prudent, virtuous government; which is essential to a Representative Republican government that people, such as this member, can't even find a distinction between the two competing ideologies...

It's an embarassment to the entire CONCEPT of America.

Of course this member sees the distinction being one where the GOP is unable to just piss on the US Constitution entirely and let the left tend to the needs of the People... while I see it as the Left pissing on the Constitution and the GOP not having the sack to stand up and just tell them straight up, that it ain't going to HAPPEN and SHUTTING THE GOVERNMENT DOWN IN ITS TRACKS until the insanity dries on the vine and some semblence of virtuous prudence can be restored.

And therein lies the distinction... which this member just can't seem to discern.

 

[Annie]

and many believe in the system of governing we inherited, but that's not the system that we've had for many years, regardless of which party controlled one or more branches of the Federal government.

I see neither the Libertarian or Green Party capable of holding office. The Greens are too far to the left, with many of the eviron whackos with them. The Libertarian Party, same problem, different direction. Whacked candidates and with the backing and acceptance of groups like Stormfront, nope, non-deal.

So we hope that either party fixes itself or a true moderate party arises.

 

[editec]

Pubie notes:

And thus in lies the distinction... which this member just can't seem to discern.

The proof is in the pudding, chum.

the distiction between the parties in rhtetoric is quite apparent.

The distinction in actions (THAT ACTUALLY MATTER TO THIS NATION) is not.

Your disgust with the Republican party and mine with the DEMOCRATIC party are actually more similar than you imagine.

The one thing I really sense about you is that you are sincerely a patriotic American.

On that matter you and I are quite similar.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Pubie notes:

And thus in lies the distinction... which this member just can't seem to discern.

The proof is in the pudding, chum.

the distiction between the parties in rhtetoric is quite apparent.

The distinction in actions (THAT ACTUALLY MATTER TO THIS NATION) is not.

Your disgust with the Republican party and mine with the DEMOCRATIC party are actually more similar than you imagine.

The one thing I really sense about you is that you are sincerely a patriotic American.

On that matter you and I are quite similar.

I just said that... so congrats... ya finally struck brilliance...

The distinction, is in the principle for which the GOP stands and the absence of principle on which the Left operates... the LACK of distinction is a function of the GOP FAILING TO DEOMONSTRATE THE LEFT IS OPERATING ABSENT SOUND, SUSTAINABLE PRINCIPLE AND GOING ALONG TO GET ALONG; by trotting out "CENTRISTS AND MODERATES" who by attempting to APPEAR Bi-PARTISAN, HAVE FAILED THE US AND THE VERY CONCEPT THAT IS AMERICA!

We both seem to agree that it's failed... but we both see the failure from two DISTINCT PERSPECTIVES and as I stated a moment ago... THEREIN... rests the distinction.

What we are looking at here is a replay of the Great Depression... and it's embarassing. The first crowd had an excuse... The failure of left-think had not been thoroughly, incontestably exposed in the results of the application of Left-think from 1929... forward more than A DECADE with CATASTROPHIC RESULTS.

The principles of course, being constant were present at the time; and there were millions who understood that the left was standing in direct contest of sound sustainable, AMERICAN principle... but at LEAST the left did not have a CENTURY of DEVASTATION wrought by one catastrophic leftist policy failure after the next... to look upon and understand the absurdity of their advocacies and actions; and the Right did not have the same with which to use as a means to counter their disasterous notions.

We have no such excuse today... and yet we sit here, facing exactly the same catastrophe... it's madness.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

On the issue of Patriotism... I want to believe that... I really do.

My problem; where I have a problem in solving that calculation, is where one squares the foundational concept of America and the certainty that such is 180 degrees in contest of everything the left stands for.

Where I am comforted is one's constant harping that one is a moderate... which, sadly is where I am torn, as well... and this stems from my understanding that left-think is an intellectual virus...

Left-think in it's entirety is an intellectual weakness which cannot be entertained... tolerated, as such failures to act against those passive tendencies are in effect, merely the first steps towards active advocacy...

The expression, paraphrased here: 'Evil is advanced when good men do nothing...' speaks to just that. Where sound, sustainable principle is ignored, where the culture tolerates behavior which stands at odds with sound principle, that culture, in so doing promotes policy which sets aside that principle; whereupon cultural thresholds are lowered and the level of acceptable cultural behavior is now bent on a curve which feeds that beast...

And where one stakes a stand to reverse the curve... what does one find themself as manifesting? That most lamentable of all cultural anathema... THE EXTREMIST.

Now the term is NEVER APPLIED to those who seeks to moderate the culture downward... its' NEVER EXTREME to want to lower the cultural threshold or standard... 'just a little'... but stand and advocate to RAISE that THREASHOLD... the TINIEST BIT and there it is... "THEY'RE EXTREMISTS."

Patriots are extreme by nature and the above is precisely why that is... Patriots draw a line and their fate is discovered by where they lie in finality... was that line defended, or did they, finally, EXPIRE DEFENDING IT?

So, yeah... I want to believe that you're a Patriot... But when I set your words, advocacies and that which you are known to promote against that standard... its REALLY hard to see it.

With that said... I WANT you to be a Patriot; I want us ALL to be Patriots... But to be a Patriot requires one to be an EXTREMIST...

Want to see a Patriot? Want to see what one looks like? Go find a Marine... An Army Ranger, a Navy Seal...

Now that doesn't mean that every Patriot has to be Marine, Ranger, Seal... it means ya need the heart of a Marine, Ranger and Seal... I could no more be what I was when I was actively serving, than I could flap my arms and fly... But I damn well understand that the principles which I learned are absolute, immutable truth that have not changed; that they will not change; that they CANNOT CHANGE; and there are things I can do to defend them; and as silly as some will try to make it seem... that is, in large measure, what I do here; which is what I do where ever the opportunity rises elsewhere. I debate the issue as the defender of the American Line... I ask for no quarter and I grant none and in every instance, I measure my success or failure against the impression I left with my opposition... and where I am said to be an extremist, I know I have at least measured up to the absolute fucking MINIMUM that this standard requires; and I rarely am saddled with that shame.

I rarely get someone returning to tell me I am right... but then I rarely run across anyone that understands enough about the issue we're debating to KNOW IF I AM RIGHT OR NOT... so my job is to fill that point of ingorance with the AMERICAN perspective... to set a point, which just perhaps, will give that individual a potential hold, which may at some point allow THEM to become extreme in their patriotism. And that friend is ALL I CAN DO; and as a Great American once said: "All you can do, is ALL YOU CAN DO! But ALL you can DO, is enough..."

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So that's it?

Seriously?

 

[JohnStOnge]

When you come right down to it, nobody who gets into difficulty using credit cards (including me) has anybody to blame but themselves. You agree to the terms. That includes agreeing to the credit card company being able to change the agreement. You can take the time to read all the fine print or you can choose not to. If you choose not to, that was your choice. If you choose to accept the credit card even though you do not understand the fine print, that is your choice.

Believe me, I think those who profer credit cards are some of the most dispicable people in our sphere. But NOBODY forces you do deal with them. Also, pretty much EVERYBODY knows that the "recommended" way to use credit cards is NEVER to purchase more than you can pay off in a single month so that you don't run afoul of the astronomical interest they charge.

To say that GOVERNMENT should protect you from failing to understand that is absurd. And I say that conceding that I have failed to "understand" that (or at least my wife has) as far as credit cards are concerned. Nothing a credit card company says it will do to you is anything it doesn't say it can do to you when you agree to accept the credit card.

 

[sealybobo]

A genuine free market is not dependent on any government, be it a democracy or dictatorship.

Really? It doesn't have to follow any of the laws the government makes? It doesn't have to pay taxes? The products don't have to be safe or approved by the FDA?

 

[sealybobo]

Why did the GOP allow credit card companies to do these things?

Oh yea, free market. Free to fuck the American consumers butt good.

I have never had problems with my Credit Cards, so basically what you're saying is Democrats come to the rescue of idiots at the expense of Liberty and Freedom.

Let's see...there's a good book about that called "Liberty and Tyranny".

Look it up.

Funny, I just heard a report this weekend about college kids. The average college kid graduates with $3000 in debt credit card

And that doesn't include their student loans.

The average college student is carrying more than $3,000 in credit card debt on at least four credit card. This shocking statistic comes from a report released by Sallie Mae, one of the nation's largest student loan providers. The report also shows that:

84% of college students have a credit card
The average number of credit cards is 4.6
Half of students have 4 or more credit cards
21% have a balance between $3,000 and $7,000!
19% of college seniors have balances above $7,000
Only 11% of students have a $0 balance
80% have been surprised at their balances
68% have made a purchase knowing they didn't have the money to pay the bill
92% say they've used their card to pay for a college expense not covered by financial aid, mostly textbooks and school supplies

So good for you

But the world doesn't revolve around you.

 

[sealybobo]

When you come right down to it, nobody who gets into difficulty using credit cards (including me) has anybody to blame but themselves. You agree to the terms. That includes agreeing to the credit card company being able to change the agreement. You can take the time to read all the fine print or you can choose not to. If you choose not to, that was your choice. If you choose to accept the credit card even though you do not understand the fine print, that is your choice.

Believe me, I think those who profer credit cards are some of the most dispicable people in our sphere. But NOBODY forces you do deal with them. Also, pretty much EVERYBODY knows that the "recommended" way to use credit cards is NEVER to purchase more than you can pay off in a single month so that you don't run afoul of the astronomical interest they charge.

To say that GOVERNMENT should protect you from failing to understand that is absurd. And I say that conceding that I have failed to "understand" that (or at least my wife has) as far as credit cards are concerned. Nothing a credit card company says it will do to you is anything it doesn't say it can do to you when you agree to accept the credit card.

Name one other contract that you have ever signed where the other end said that they could raise their rates at any time for any reason.


Yes, the government is supposed to protect us from this sort of thing. That is EXACTLY the governments role.

I love you right wingers and the positions you take. Good luck winning the young vote talking nonsense like this.

 

[sealybobo]

the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs committee passed the Dodd-Levin Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act, S.414).

This legislation will put an end to a host of deceptive and unjust credit card practices that impose additional financial hardship on consumers who are doing their best to stay afloat.

This legislation seeks to put an end to unfair credit card practices that mire millions of American families in debt. The Dodd-Levin CARD Act results in part from an ongoing investigation into abusive credit card practices I initiated as the Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. In May 2007, in response to the abuses brought to light as a result of this investigation, I introduced the Stop Unfair Practices in Credit Cards Act (S.1395). I am pleased that nearly all of the provisions from S.1395 have been included in the CARD Act of 2009.

The landmark bill approved by the Banking Committee earlier this week would ban the most egregious credit card practices that are unfairly deepening or prolonging credit card debt for many consumers. Under this legislation, for example, credit card companies would be prohibited from applying higher interest rates retroactively to existing credit card debt, hiking interest rates on customers who pay on time, and collecting interest on credit card debts that were repaid on time. In addition, this bill would crack down on unreasonable fees, including repeated late fees, over-the-limit fees, and fees to pay your bill, and would prohibit charging interest on those fees. It would also prohibit so-called “universal default” interest rate hikes in which a credit card company hikes a cardholder’s interest rate for reasons unrelated to the account held with that company. It would also make sure that cardholders get their bills 21 days before the bill is due and give them until 5:00 p.m. on the due date to make a payment.

I have called on the full Senate to pass the Dodd-Levin CARD Act as soon as possible. At a time when working people are struggling, common sense credit card reform is essential to protect American families from unfair fees and interest charges.

You can view both my press release on committee passage at []Technical difficulties. and my statement upon introduction of this bill at []Technical difficulties..
Sincerely,
Carl Levin

Hey GREAT JOB! Super... This should put an end to the Credit Card problem once and for all...

Of course, it will put an end to, or significantly alter the means of 'the poor' to access such cards... and what do ya suppose Mr. Levin et al will have to say when the Credit card Biz stops lending to that sacred cow...

We have some history to look upon that tells us what they'll say. I mean the Mortgage biz stopped lending to certain districts where the poor lived; and this because those districts had TERRIBLE records of repayment and one ideology or another came along and said something... what was that they said and who was it?

Does anyone remember who that was or what they said and did?
.
.
.
.
Oh YEAH!

The Federal Reserve came along and said it was a violation of their civil rights... that banks could NOT 'just not lend to them'; because they were of a protected class... And let's see... what happened there?

I know SOMETHING happened, but it was SO long ago...

What happened when the Federal Reserve and the Congressional Caucus of Communists who just happen to be black, along with Bawney Fwank... DEMANDED that the Mortgage industry set aside sound actuarial lending thresholds and lend to THE POOR and then used quasi-private/ Federal banks to guarantee those loans?

Anyone remember how that worked out?

But I'm SURE that this manipulation of the Credit Markets by the Radical Left in the US Legislature will work out MUCH BETTER... because it's not at ALL like the other thingy... I mean it's credit CARD debt... Not Home Mortgages...

I doubt that this will extend the Recession of... When does the Left say this Recession started? 2007? Yeah I think that was it... SO I REALLY doubt that THIS manipulation of the Credit Markets will EXTEND, prolong, buttress or otherwise preclude the recovery from the 2007 Recession...

And to those who think that THIS is ANYTHING like the DEPRESSION... GET REAL... The Depression lasted 12 YEARS! And this one's only lasted 2 years so far... and just because this one's lasted 6 months longer and is exponentially deeper, with a 50% loss in the equity markets (with no actual signs of improvement) than any recession in the 48 years of my life, doesn't mean that the INCREDIBLE MANIPULATION OF THE PRIVATE MARKETS BY THE PROGRESSIVE FISCAL POLICY of the FED and LEFTISTS IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT...

I'm sure that gross manipulation of the credit card markets, voiding contracts which were legally advanced and agreed to by BOTH PARTIES will work out JUST FINE with no really nasty 'UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES...' And even if it does... ITS THEIR INTENTIONS THAT COUNT... NOT THE RESULTS.

When the Federal Reserve took up the issue in December, it received more than 60,000 comments on its proposed changes in regulations. The result was a crackdown on practices like "two-cycle billing," in which a cardholder who pays the entire account balance one month but not the next gets charged interest on the average of both months of debt. The regulations take effect in July 2010.

 

[sealybobo]

In a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, the senators accused the companies of raising rates now to deflect the impact of new federal regulations scheduled to take effect July 1, 2010. The new rules will curtail some of the card companies' most-criticized practices - including one Obama singled out, that of "any-time, any-reason rate hikes" not triggered by cardholders' delinquencies.

Oh look, the typical threat from corporate America: Banks, reeling from the recession and credit crunch, say proposed restrictions will raise consumer costs, limit credit availability, and ultimately hurt more borrowers than they help.

 

[sealybobo]

Pubie notes:

And thus in lies the distinction... which this member just can't seem to discern.

The proof is in the pudding, chum.

the distiction between the parties in rhtetoric is quite apparent.

The distinction in actions (THAT ACTUALLY MATTER TO THIS NATION) is not.

Your disgust with the Republican party and mine with the DEMOCRATIC party are actually more similar than you imagine.

The one thing I really sense about you is that you are sincerely a patriotic American.

On that matter you and I are quite similar.

Really? In a million years could you ever imagine the GOP doing this to the Credit card companies?

For immediate release
The Federal Reserve Board on Friday proposed rules to prohibit unfair practices regarding credit cards and overdraft services that would, among other provisions, protect consumers from unexpected increases in the rate charged on pre-existing credit card balances.

The rules, proposed for public comment under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), also would forbid banks from imposing interest charges using the "two-cycle" billing method, would require that consumers receive a reasonable amount of time to make their credit card payments, and would prohibit the use of payment allocation methods that unfairly maximize interest charges. They also include protections for consumers that use overdraft services offered by their bank.

"The proposed rules are intended to establish a new baseline for fairness in how credit card plans operate," said Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke. "Consumers relying on credit cards should be better able to predict how their decisions and actions will affect their costs."

The proposed changes to the Board’s Regulation AA (Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices) would be complemented by separate proposals that the Board is issuing under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) and the Truth in Savings Act (Regulation DD).

The provisions addressing credit card practices are part of the Board’s ongoing effort to enhance protections for consumers who use credit cards, and follow the Board's 2007 proposal to improve the credit card disclosures under the Truth in Lending Act. The FTC Act proposal includes five key protections for consumers that use credit cards:

Banks would be prohibited from increasing the rate on a pre-existing credit card balance (except under limited circumstances) and must allow the consumer to pay off that balance over a reasonable period of time.

Banks would be prohibited from applying payments in excess of the minimum in a manner that maximizes interest charges.

Banks would be required to give consumers the full benefit of discounted promotional rates on credit cards by applying payments in excess of the minimum to any higher-rate balances first, and by providing a grace period for purchases where the consumer is otherwise eligible.

Banks would be prohibited from imposing interest charges using the "two-cycle" method, which computes interest on balances on days in billing cycles preceding the most recent billing cycle.

Banks would be required to provide consumers a reasonable amount of time to make payments.

 

[del]

In a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, the senators accused the companies of raising rates now to deflect the impact of new federal regulations scheduled to take effect July 1, 2010. The new rules will curtail some of the card companies' most-criticized practices - including one Obama singled out, that of "any-time, any-reason rate hikes" not triggered by cardholders' delinquencies.

Oh look, the typical threat from corporate America: Banks, reeling from the recession and credit crunch, say proposed restrictions will raise consumer costs, limit credit availability, and ultimately hurt more borrowers than they help.

yeah, that's why biden supported changing bankruptcy laws to make them favorable to credit card companies, because he's different.

"As Scott Delman describes, the 2005 bankruptcy legislation, which passed in a Republican-controlled Congress with minimal Democratic support, made the terms for consumers seeking to declare personal bankruptcy more stringent. Among the key features of the legislation was that it made unsecured loans, which are most often credit card loans, less easily discharged in a bankruptcy. Because this bill drastically increased the likelihood that a bankrupt consumer would have to pay back their credit card loans, the card industry advocated strongly for its passage.

Since many of the independent and bank-owned credit card companies are located in Delaware, the card industry lobbied aggressively for the passage of this bill to that state’s Congressional delegation. As a consequence, Mr. Biden was one of the few Democratic supporters of this bill, and, as has been well reported, one of Congress’s largest beneficiaries of the industry’s political donations."

On Bankruptcy: Biden vs. Obama - Campaign Stops Blog - NYTimes.com

 

[sealybobo]

In a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, the senators accused the companies of raising rates now to deflect the impact of new federal regulations scheduled to take effect July 1, 2010. The new rules will curtail some of the card companies' most-criticized practices - including one Obama singled out, that of "any-time, any-reason rate hikes" not triggered by cardholders' delinquencies.

Oh look, the typical threat from corporate America: Banks, reeling from the recession and credit crunch, say proposed restrictions will raise consumer costs, limit credit availability, and ultimately hurt more borrowers than they help.

yeah, that's why biden supported changing bankruptcy laws to make them favorable to credit card companies, because he's different.

"As Scott Delman describes, the 2005 bankruptcy legislation, which passed in a Republican-controlled Congress with minimal Democratic support, made the terms for consumers seeking to declare personal bankruptcy more stringent. Among the key features of the legislation was that it made unsecured loans, which are most often credit card loans, less easily discharged in a bankruptcy. Because this bill drastically increased the likelihood that a bankrupt consumer would have to pay back their credit card loans, the card industry advocated strongly for its passage.

Since many of the independent and bank-owned credit card companies are located in Delaware, the card industry lobbied aggressively for the passage of this bill to that state’s Congressional delegation. As a consequence, Mr. Biden was one of the few Democratic supporters of this bill, and, as has been well reported, one of Congress’s largest beneficiaries of the industry’s political donations."

On Bankruptcy: Biden vs. Obama - Campaign Stops Blog - NYTimes.com

the 2005 bankruptcy legislation, which passed in a Republican-controlled Congress with minimal Democratic support

So how does this get you to vote Republican?

Democrats in Michigan also passed the law that drug companies couldn't be sued in Michigan if their drugs were approved by the FDA. I didn't like that, but I understood that it was to attract those companies to come to Michigan. Now that they are leaving, the dems want to get rid of this law, but the GOP won't allow them to put it to a vote.

So should I be mad that Democrats helped pass this law and vote Republican next time Del?

Looks like Biden was defending companies that are in his home state. Isn't that what you do as a Senator?

But these are the little things that make people think they are all the same.

I blame Bush.

 

[del]

keep telling yourself there's a difference, bobo, if it helps you sleep better.

 

[DiveCon]

In a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, the senators accused the companies of raising rates now to deflect the impact of new federal regulations scheduled to take effect July 1, 2010. The new rules will curtail some of the card companies' most-criticized practices - including one Obama singled out, that of "any-time, any-reason rate hikes" not triggered by cardholders' delinquencies.

Oh look, the typical threat from corporate America: Banks, reeling from the recession and credit crunch, say proposed restrictions will raise consumer costs, limit credit availability, and ultimately hurt more borrowers than they help.

yeah, that's why biden supported changing bankruptcy laws to make them favorable to credit card companies, because he's different.

"As Scott Delman describes, the 2005 bankruptcy legislation, which passed in a Republican-controlled Congress with minimal Democratic support, made the terms for consumers seeking to declare personal bankruptcy more stringent. Among the key features of the legislation was that it made unsecured loans, which are most often credit card loans, less easily discharged in a bankruptcy. Because this bill drastically increased the likelihood that a bankrupt consumer would have to pay back their credit card loans, the card industry advocated strongly for its passage.

Since many of the independent and bank-owned credit card companies are located in Delaware, the card industry lobbied aggressively for the passage of this bill to that state’s Congressional delegation. As a consequence, Mr. Biden was one of the few Democratic supporters of this bill, and, as has been well reported, one of Congress’s largest beneficiaries of the industry’s political donations."

On Bankruptcy: Biden vs. Obama - Campaign Stops Blog - NYTimes.com

the 2005 bankruptcy legislation, which passed in a Republican-controlled Congress with minimal Democratic support

So how does this get you to vote Republican?

Democrats in Michigan also passed the law that drug companies couldn't be sued in Michigan if their drugs were approved by the FDA. I didn't like that, but I understood that it was to attract those companies to come to Michigan. Now that they are leaving, the dems want to get rid of this law, but the GOP won't allow them to put it to a vote.

So should I be mad that Democrats helped pass this law and vote Republican next time Del?

Looks like Biden was defending companies that are in his home state. Isn't that what you do as a Senator?

But these are the little things that make people think they are all the same.

I blame Bush.

of course you blame Bush
i bet you scream out "DAMN YOU BUSH" when you stub your toe

seek out professional help
really, you NEED it

 

[sealybobo]

keep telling yourself there's a difference, bobo, if it helps you sleep better.

HUGE difference between the two parties. That's why one party is doing really well right now and the other is in shambles.

The GOP spent the last 8 years fucking us and now the Dems will work to undo the damage. Are they perfect? No. But are they different enough that one is better than the other? Of course. Why else bother voting? And why else would Spector defect?

Last week we sent over 30,000 letters to Congress, urging legislators to support the bipartisan Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act. And yesterday, the Senate overwhelmingly approved it by a vote of 92-4, bringing us one step closer to providing federal law enforcers with the resources they need to go after the white-collar criminals who have wreaked so much havoc on our economy and hard-working families.

When the Bush-Cheney Administration took thousands of federal investigators off financial fraud cases, criminals like Bernard Madoff -- whose "Ponzi scheme" cost investors $65 billion -- operated with virtual impunity. Unless we act to reverse this course, financial frauds will continue to rob hard-working Americans of their retirement funds, their homes, and their savings.

If passed by Congress and signed by President Obama, the bipartisan Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act will:

Authorize an additional $245 million a year to hire hundreds of federal investigators, prosecutors, and staff to fight fraud,

Fill in statutory gaps to account for modern types of fraud and correct erroneous court decisions,

Update the definition of "financial institution" in federal fraud statutes to include all mortgage lending businesses, and

Protect federal recovery funding from fraudulent use.
The Senate has taken bold action. Now it's the House of Representatives' turn to get tough on white-collar crime.

How do you think these letters would have been received by a Republican majority? Much different than how the Dems handled it.

Remember Republicans. When you tell us that the Dems suck, I'm going to remind you that the GOP are no different. And when you say they are no different, I'll show you differences.