Ah....but since you guys seem to think that the current administration constitutes a terminal illness for the United States....perhaps it is justified! :D

the point is that these companies had a bad year so they're getting their losses back raising the rates on ALL customers.

But presumably their customers who are fiscally conservative don't ever carry a balance and would therefore be unaffected by interest rate increases. If people pay their bill in full every month, the interest rate on their credit card is pretty meaningless. Only the foolish liberals who spend money they don't have should be affected by credit card rates.

:zz:

Everybody has/or uses credit cards to some extent, conservative or liberal.
the blatent point is that THEY arbitrarily raise their rates even to the best of customers....plain simple abuse to their cardholders.

in response to the bills trumpeted by Riot several months ago.

exactly. the credit card companies are aiming for a certain profit, and they will get it regardless of what rules the oh so knowledgable congress puts in place. people seem to forget that people who don't pay their bills, are late, or declare bankruptcy are essentially buying things and then not paying for them. credit card companies have to charge high fees, etc, to pay for their customers' mistakes. how do i solve that problem? haven't had a CC in years, and won't have one. that's why you don't see me complaining about high fees or interest rates. you can decide for yourself if you want to deal with the bs involved with having ready plastic in your pocket.

That's right. Some are trying to screw their customers one last time before the law prohibits them from doing it. It's a good law, not protective enough, but about darn time.

I had a rate increase notification on two of the three cards I have. I called to negotiate. They wouldn't. I fired one of them. You can, too. Read the fine print, for some, if you carry a balance you can decline the rate increase (freeze, end) the card, freezing the outstanding balance at the current rate.

We do, but read the article again. Bush "did" do stuff and there it sits.

Obama "may" do stuff (in the opinion of this op-ed piece and Cannon Shell)

You can't crucify Obama for doing stuff, until he actually does it ;)

Then you can say, "I told you so!"

And they won't be able to in another month. So call them, be aggressive, demand the rate you want, and if it doesn't work fire them, keep one card.

And after the new legislation takes effect shop around, you should get some great deals - and no "entry rate then we screw you later in the fine print when you don't notice" , because it will no longer be permitted by law ;)

No giving you a notice that "suddenly starting two months back your interest rate rose". No moving the billing due date around on you so you'll miss it and incur overdue charges. No applying high interest rates to the oldest balances obtained under a lower rate.

It's good legislation. Just hang on through the final temper tantrum of the credit card issuers, because YOU'LL have the power, not them, in another month or so when the legislation takes effect.

They could raise my rate as high as they want, it doesn't affect me at all.
I use a credit card for everything, and never pay a dime in interest because I never carry a balance.
I just don't like being in debt. Maybe it is simply my inner fiscal-conservative rearing his ugly head.

hopefully, he'll do a hostile takeover on the rest of YOU:p

Here's me: fire one! fire two!:)

IMO that would be like waiting for a burglar to actually take something after breaking into the house before putting 3 rapid shots in the center core.

Obama's plans are clear so either I told you so or he's lying to us about his agenda.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ostpop_emailed

When it comes to spending, the Democrats who run Washington can't decide on their message. On the one hand, as President Obama said this week, they claim we have to "spend our way out of this recession." On the other, they keep telling us the deficit is too large and isn't "sustainable." In this tug of political spin, watch what they spend, not what they say.

Exactly. Let's not listen to the spin, let's see what's real:

So far Obama hasn't spent $200 billion he was entitled to (budgeted) to spend. He gave us a tax cut. He kept us out of a depression.

He says won't sign a health reform bill unless it's self-funded. He keeps railing against increased costs across the federal government.

We'll see what Congress does with the budget, and what Obama redlines or not out of it.

Obama campaigned on zero-based budgeting, let's hope he holds to it. So far he's doing fine.

No, that would be like shooting the burglar when he was outside your home, standing on the sidewalk, because you thought he was thinking about breaking into your home.

this piece of Crap didn't even attend the army-navy game, saturday to show support for the military.:wf
the only thing this clown has done since elected, is fly around the world on "free vacations".:zz:

Yeah great...the govt's only grown 10% since he started his grand plans!

just a few snippets:


CBO projects a $9.1 trillion deficit under Obama’s budget, and a $4.4 trillion deficit under current law. In other words, CBO figures Obama’s budget would make the deficit $4.5 trillion worse, not $2.2 trillion better


The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office doesn’t agree that Obama’s budget has “reduced federal spending” at all. Quite the opposite. His budget calls for vastly increased spending, according to CBO

CBO specifically estimated the "total effect on outlays" of Obama’s budget as an increase of $2.7 trillion compared with what’s called for in current law. So by CBO’s figuring, spending would go up $2.7 trillion, not down $2.2 trillion.

I challenge all the Obama Haters here to watch 60 Minutes tonight, then discuss what is said here.

Thanks, but I'll wait until Congress gets through with tearing apart the budget, as they have 1000 times more input into the final product than the President does ;)

he loves himself more than andy stering..though i will get the bs meter out of the basement..

he said nothing...im all over it..blah blah blah.. oh and he likes to tell everyone hes the prez..and has the final say..:zz:

it's his budget that he submitted they were talking about, not what congress will eventually approve. but way to deflect at any rate. obama wants increased spending, while at the same time cautioning about a bigger deficit. it's called talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Why should he have to attend the Army-Navy game?...JFC DT:zz:

He's not a piece of crap man...I can't wait until you ( not you) a-holes have to deal with a Liberal in charge for another 4 years....ROTFLMAO

probably not gonna happen...but keep drinking the koolaid:rolleyes:

You keep saying this and yet harp on others for things perceived. I can tell you one with with complete certainty, if someone with any creditability had shown this to be true we would have been bombarded with it. Obama with falling approval rates, a seemingly dead Cap and tax bill, a weak Democratic showing at the polls in the Nov elections, a struggling health care bill, an increasing deficit and seemingly getting blasted by the far left as a traitor and the right for exposing him hasn't used the "I kept us out of a depression" card. Why exactly would that be? A new president assuming huge global financial troubles saves the day but doesnt tell anyone?

As for the rest you simply refuse to see the truth. As always you simply listen to what they say, not understand what they do.

Let me ask you one question about the healthcare deal. If it will take 4 years of revenue and "cuts" before there is enough money to even begin the program, how will it possibly sustain itself without a massive tax increase?

That's bs. The Dems control both houses and he is the freakin President and of the same party. He can get whatever he wants in or out of that thing. If he can't?

If he doesnt have enough influence within his own party to get his own budget passed we should seriously be worried.

Honestly you have to admit he is too much of a narcissist to be a real liberal.

Let me ask you one question about the healthcare deal. If it will take 4 years of revenue and "cuts" before there is enough money to even begin the program, how will it possibly sustain itself without a massive tax increase?[/quote]

It can't........thank God. Thus it will be much ado about nothing as expected by anyone with a calculator and a calendar.

Again..his biggest problem is not being Liberal enough

How about virtually every financial expert, including your Wall Street Journal? Every one of them has said it kept us out of a depression.

YOU are the one saying he's been a financial failure, yet you still have nothing concrete to show except what you fear will maybe happen in the future, sorta maybe.

Do you even keep current on the news? :zz:

??? The President doesn't make up the vast majority of what we spend every year - it is largely predetermined, Medicare, federal employees, defense, etc. For example Fed employees are getting a 2% raise this year.

Are you talking about what is in the House and Senate now, the omnibus bill for 2010 spending, right?

So tell me, out of all the 2010 spending ("Obama's budget" is not what it is), what is specifically Obama's programs, added, that you don't like?

And yes, that bill (those bills, House and Senate are different) are huge and filled with pork, and much will be cut out, and the vast majority of crap in it is put there by our Congressmen and Senators for their districts and states.

Blaming everything in there for 2010 all on Obama is ridiculous. And yes, you have to wait and see what is passed and what is not.

News (not op-ed) article discussing it: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=alggRZ3von6w

Uh where and when?

I dont keep current on the news on Mars where yours seem to come from.

Here let me repeat in response to your inference that the budget is NOT Obama's but actually is 1000 times more Congresses.....


That's bs. The Dems control both houses and he is the freakin President and of the same party. He can get whatever he wants in or out of that thing. If he can't?

If he doesnt have enough influence within his own party to get his own budget passed we should seriously be worried.



The interesting thing is that "current news" actually has little to do with your inferring that the budget is almost exclusively the province of Congress with the President having very little to do with it .........unless 1000 times less isnt a big deal in the alternate reality world in which you live in.

Obama's signature is needed to put in effect. It IS his budget just as it is every Presidents.

Remember when Obama was campaigning against all that pork? And no he has lifted a finger to stop previous pork laden bills nor will he stop or make any attempt to curb it here either.

Funny thing about your news article that you seemingly post in defense of obama. It points out several things which I'm sure you missed. So let me help you out by explaining what those items mean.



“The spending bill represents the priorities of our nation,” Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the chamber’s No. 2 Democrat, said Dec. 12. “We’re spending more money to keep cops on the street, to keep neighborhoods safe,” he said, calling it “money well spent.”

This means that they are embarrassed by the amount of money they are spending by attempting to use scare tactics to justify the 12% increase. I mean seriously? $450 billion spent and the best they can do is "we will keep you safe!!!" LOL. Not exactly a realistic view of what is going on though I suppose we live in a country dumb enough to elect Dick Durbin and Barack Obama, why wouldnt they assume we are stupid. On to the next point...


Obama is likely to sign the spending measure into law, though the White House Budget Office didn’t issue its usual “Statement of Administration Policy” outlining its position on the bill. A White House Office of Management and Budget spokesman didn’t respond to requests for comment.

This means Obama wants to distance himself from the obscene spending increases but doesnt have enough balls to send it back to Congress to rework before he signs it. This way if down the road economic conditions improve or things are going well he can say that he supported the budget by signing it. If things dont go so well, we there wont be any readymade quotes like the 8% unemployment remarks that continue to haunt him. No comment means more in Washington than ridiculous spin.

The bill’s passage leaves just one of the 12 annual appropriations bills awaiting passage. Democrats said they plan to use the last bill, setting the Defense Department’s budget, as a vehicle to pass an increase in the nation’s debt limit, expanded aid to the jobless and possibly an extension of the estate tax that expires Dec. 31.

Ah an increase in the debt limit. We knew it was coming and isnt new in Washington but for those wondering about the great plan to reduce the deficit, well the hole gets a little deeper. The obligatory soft toss to the unemployed naturally is tied into a tax increase. Yes extending a tax that was supposed to expire is in effect a tax increase. Now regarding those tax cuts set to expire....ya still think there is a chance they are extended?

The measure’s budget increases would spread the additional money across scores of individual programs; the Democrats’ summary of the legislation’s “key investments” ran more than 20 pages. The Securities and Exchange Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and federal enforcement programs at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration all would receive double-digit increases.

I wasnt aware that we had an issue with consumer product safety in this country so grave that a double -digit increase in the CPSC was needed. Interesting that the Federal Trade commission gets a bunch of money considering the administrations uh...unusual dealing with trade. The capper is the always unseemly union present. The ENFORCEMENT program at OSHA gets the money. Not OSHA, the enforcement program. Which simply means more headaches and money wasted by American businesses to keep current with the often mundane and in many cases useless OSHA regulations.

Short story. OSHA comes into CD because of concerns over "workers safety issues". They spend a bunch of time (and money) evaluating the backstretch. Since the vast majority of injuries are horse specific and not related to workplace conditions (though supposedly they were aghast at the backside set up), they decided that CD needed to install wire guards in the hay lofts to prevent people from falling out of said lofts. (I cant ever remember a person in the last 10 years falling out of a loft) Well the truth is that the steel guards actually made the working conditions less safe as before a groom only had to go up to the loft twice a week and could set up their hay and straw to be pulled down with a pitchfork. Now they have to go up and down the ladders to the loft every day and sometimes more than once in the narrow barns. In addition they must not throw the bales over the guards to get them down to the stalls which not only is way more dangerous for the people below (they dont care about horses) but results in many more possible injuries due to back issues with throwing sometimes 100 pound bales over wire guards. I'm sure that in some industry there are issues that need to be monitored and OSHA isnt all bad or inept, but in the day and age where lawsuits are filed (and cases won) seemingly without regard for validity, this expansion of OSHA's enforcement couldnt come at a worse time for American business which will be forced to spend money complying to standards, often at the expense of their non union employees (we all know that union employees are basically hands off).

The Small Business Administration would see a 35 percent increase. The bill also includes 5,224 pet projects known as earmarks at a cost of $4 billion, according to the Washington-based Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The SBA getting an increase from the outside looks like a good investment until you realize it is the SBA getting the money. They are fine to deal with if your business is looking for $10000k. Other than that they are completely ineffectual and truthfully who gets the money from them is more often than not a "who you know" situation.
The earmarks.....well you already know...

The bill funds the Department of Health and Human Services, which administers Medicare and Medicaid. With the projected spending on those two mandatory health-care programs, which is not capped by the legislation approved yesterday, costs would top $1 trillion.
:)

Some programs would be cut, including abstinence-only sex education programs and the Office of Labor-Management Standards, which regulates unions.

That abstinence program was just hemorrhaging money.....LOL!
Too bad the unions werent given an abstinence program since they seem to be ****in the American taxpayer once again. Lets expand Unions, let them bully their members into voting their wants and then cut the agency that regulates them. Who put this provision in? Tony Soprano? Another disgraceful sop to the union chiefs. But after seeing who Obama put in as Labor secretary this is no surprise.

it won't. i'd imagine obama will make it look nice, will get it passed, and then leave the real bill for after he's long gone out of office. he'll be able to crow about how he got it done (interesting isn't it, when there's a success it's the president who did it, but if there's a problem-it's congresses fault!) but later we'll have bigger and bigger issues to deal with to keep it going.