New CARD Act a little unfair

[Anonymous]

Predatory lending, fraud, etc. are not what we're (not me, anyway) talking about.  

 

We're talking about taking one particular type of legal american of the age of majority, and making it illegal for them to enter into a particular type of contract.

 Sounds illegal to me. 

 

---

@Anonymous wrote:
I don't agree... predatory lending practices should be completely outlawed in my honest opinion. The credit card act covers other things too like the ridiculous fee for paying with a debit card. Why should you have to pay a fee to make a payment on your bill.

These companies take advantage of the fact that some people have less than perfect credit knowing that other lenders would not be willing to lend anything to these people.

The same companies also used to take advantage of "kids" face it at 18 years old we may think we know it all but years later we realize different.

It's all good until the shoe is on the other foot.. not everyone gets bad credit because they didn't care, or because they were irresponsible.

These lenders should have rules and regulations, they have been able to abuse the system way too long.

---

[Anonymous]

I just believe this whole thing never would have happened if it wasn't for companies like first premier.

If it wasn't for their shady practices there probably would have never been a change!

As far as being 18 I have mixed feelings on that, I mean at 18 you can go to war and die for your country, but you can't have a beer, and now apparently a credit card.

However I do understand why they done it, but it's kind hypocritical considering the government has been using the same tactics (get them young) for military recruiting for as long as I can remember.

[Tyler2454]

I personally think this is exactly what was needed.  The only people who should have a problem with this are the people who intend on using credit in a juvenile immature way.  What's wrong with being able to "PROVE" you have the means of paying the money back if you get a card?  This is actually the smartest thing that has ever been created in regards to credit cards.  It didn't say no credit cards for people under 21 without a cosigner.  You can still get credit cards at 18 without a cosigner "IF" 1 you have a job or 2 you go to the companies that you pay in to get a credit limit up to the amount you deposit.  Why would you want a credit card without a job at that age?  That just sounds stupid.  One argument to that statement is to just get the credit card make charges to it and have mommy and daddy help you build credit by picking up the tab/or have mommy and daddy take the card and make charges and pay for it themselves.  The problem with that is, it doesn't measure an individuals credit worthiness, it measures their parents, thus allowing them to make bigger more expensive purchases and possibly leading to more financial trouble.  This new law is just a safe responsible way to keep people in check.  If you don't have the money to get a credit card the way I explained above then you don't deserve it in the first place because you obviously can't even pay for that.  This is the way it should have been for a LONG time.  Why comare auto loans and homes to credit cardsa? At least car dealerships can take their cars back for non payment, and banks can take homes back.  This law is 100% totally fair in every way to "responsible" people.  Credit is to measure a persons worthiness and now it will be proven a little more from day one by making sure people under 21 have a job to pay for it or they can shell out their own money initially to start.  Thanks Obama!

[sgtm7]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Republicans & Democrats need to learn that if they stop abiding by the Constitution, they'll be ex-politicians.   Libertarian leaning individuals would not ever say this was a "Fair" or "Just" law.  Because it isn't.  Choosing which companies are legitimate and fair should be the ones that get your business.  We don't want the government deciding who does and does not get loans.

---

Like I said before.  The drinking age bothers me more than this law.  This law doesn't prohibit someone under the age of 21 getting a credit card, it only requires you to show proof of the financial ability to make the payments.  Big difference from having a requirement and a prohibition.   As far as I am concerned, if you are unemployed and still living off of mommy and daddy, then you are still a child, and don't have any business with a credit card in your name anyhow.  

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There's a huge difference between 18 and 21.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speak for yourself.  There isn't that much difference between an 18 year old and a 21 year old.  Not if the parents raise their children right.  

Message Edited by sgtm7 on 02-23-2010 12:00 PM

[Anonymous]

I have to agree there is a huge difference between 18 and 21, at 18 I would have disagreed strongly though

[Anonymous]

HI.. FIRSTLY, I HAVE TO APPLAUD YOU. IT IS A RARE TEEN THAT IS SO VERY CONSCIOUS OF TOMORROW, MUCH LESS CONSEQUENCES OF BAD DECISIONS FOLLWING THEM DOWN THE ROAD... AND EVEN LESS COMMON TO TAKE THEIR CREDIT RATINGS SERIOUSLY....I ALSO APPLAUD YOUR PARENTS AND THE SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY THEY INSTILLED IN YOU. BUT, IN MY EXPERIENCE W/ YOUNG CREDITHOLDERS IS THAT YOU ARE SURELY THE EXCEPTION RATHER THAN THE RULE....I AM 53 AND ONLY BEGUN TO TRY TO CLEAN UP THE MESS I MADE IN YOUTH OF MY CREDIT....IF ANYTHING, THERE SHOULD BE A GRANDFATHER CLAUSE IN PLACE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALREADY DISPLAYED RESPONSIBLE USE OF CREDIT...BUT AFTER 5 YEARS OF WORKING WITH TERRIBLE CC'S AND CATALOGUE SHOPPING, AND 1 COSIGNED CAR LOAN, I AM FINALLY GETTING SOMEWHERE... I STARTED WITH A LOW 424 5 YRS. AGO AND HAVE FINALLY REACH TU=676, EQ=654, AND THE OTHER ONE THAT STARTS W/AN E=604....I FINALLY WAS ABLE TO PURCHASE A CAR ON MY OWN SIGNATURE, SO I EXPECT IT TO HELP ME GETG SOME MORE POINTS....... MY GOAL IS 770 ACROSS THE BOARD BY THE TIME I AM 55! YA THINK ?

[Anonymous]

If the CC companies made this their policy on their own, I wouldn't have a problem with it.  It's none of the gov's business.   

---

sgtm7 wrote:  

Like I said before.  The drinking age bothers me more than this law.  This law doesn't prohibit someone under the age of 21 getting a credit card, it only requires you to show proof of the financial ability to make the payments.  Big difference from having a requirement and prohibition. 

[sgtm7]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
I have to agree there is a huge difference between 18 and 21, at 18 I would have disagreed strongly though

---

I am 44.  Didn't see much difference with me.  Then again, I started planning my career when I was 12 years old, and started doing it as soon as I graduated from highschool at 17.  So I might be the exception, rather than the rule.  However..... from what I do see of today's 21 year olds, is not too much different than what I see with today's 18 year olds.  

[Anonymous]

HELLO, GOOD FRIEND...YOUR PARTY IS SHOWING. THE TIME FOR BIPARTISANSHIP IS HERE!..IT IS ABOUT THE PEOPLE AND OUR UNDUE STRESS....CRUNCH TIME, YA KNOW?

[jumper4000]

Mgajunk, you're a little bit too anti government... I have absolutely no problem with capitalism and letting the markets do what they want. But, my friend, it's a little TOO LATE for that. At this point, the government is the ONLY entity that can stand up to these monstrous corporations. Right now, there are 4 or 5 banks that control ALL of our money; 4 or 5 drug companies that control ALL of our medications; 4 or 5 insurance companies that control ALL of our health and wellbeing (they decide who lives and dies); 2 or 3 phone companies that control ALL of our communication; 3 or 4 oil companies who control ALL of our energy; and 3 or 4 media companies who control ALL the news we hear (thank god for the Internet)... Through gouging, cartels, corruption, and monopolies these companies control EVERY SINGLE aspect of our lives, and without some government intervention, there isn't a **bleep** thing you and I could do about it. What would you do if the 3 or 4 oil companies got together and decided to charge $20 a gallon for gas starting tomorrow??? Without government intervention, there is ABSOLUTELY NOT A THING that you can do about it. So, stop saying that the government should butt out of everything. That would be fine if we had true capitalism, but right now, we're at a point where without the government, good or bad (mostly bad), the corporations can literally come to your house, take your children, then auction them off on eBay, just to pay for your late payments, and there isn't a **bleep** THING you can do about it. 

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Republicans & Democrats need to learn that if they stop abiding by the Constitution, they'll be ex-politicians.   Libertarian leaning individuals would not ever say this was a "Fair" or "Just" law.  Because it isn't.  Choosing which companies are legitimate and fair should be the ones that get your business.  We don't want the government deciding who does and does not get loans.

---

sgtm7 wrote: 

Having strong Libertarian leanings, I somewhat agree with you on this.  However, we are stuck with Republicans and Democrats, and government interference isn't going to stop anytime soon.  So if they ARE going to intefere, I would rather see them insist all lending institutions make debt to income ratios more important than the FICO score for EVERYONE.   If only some companies did it, but not others, it would still be possible for people to get in way over their heads, and both the consumer and the lender loses out in the long run. 

---

---