Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by NEPatriot, Dec 18, 2008.
It's good news for credit card holders.
You are aware of this...
FUGGN' YEAH!!! It's about time someone put restrictions on these thieves!
See shmessy & RW...I was right!
I'm open-minded. It's what it's and we need to MOVE ON.
Don't celebrate it because this new rule won't take effect UNTIL 2010.
Credit card companies can still do what they do between now and 2010. You are still SCREWED
NOt with excellent credit and zero balance...how you doin' with yours NEPat?
YOU WERE NOT RIGHT! Sheesh. The CC comapnies were well within their rights to do what they were doing. Clearly the passing of new laws, means that the practice was legal. If they do that now, after the laws have been changed, then they would be wrong. You're funny. You point to the "LAW" in one thread, then ignore the "LAW" in another, over a similar argument.
I'm doing FINE because i haven't had a credit card in my life.
THAT'S FU(KING UN-AMERICAN!
Wow, next thing you know, he'll yell us he doesn't eat McDonald's, and isn't overweight!
Listen closely RW....the LAW was passed to stop the UNETHICAL practices that the cc companies have used.
No, you were wrong.
It was completely legal when they did it (and, btew until mid-2010). You really need to be able to comprehend the difference bewteen the concepts "inherently wrong" and "illegal", because you keep careening off the rails due to your incomprehension of that.
What the CC companies have been doing until now (and to an extent until mid-2010) has been "inherently wrong", but completely legal at the time of its misdeeds.
What BofA did (originally) to the workers at Republic Window was SIMILARLY "inherently wrong" but completely legal at the time of its misdeeds.
Can't draw it out by crayon any simpler for ya!
Which means that it was NOT illegal when they did it in the past (and, btw until mid-2010).
How simple is that????????????
Once again, UNETHICAL does not mean ILLEGAL!!! This is the exact differential I was stating in the BofA vs. Republic Window employees thread. I said it was morally wrong - - you claimed I was stating that it was illegal - - which was pure BS.
I fully agree that BofA had the very same LEGAL right to give a turd about the Republic employees rightfully owed wages that Citibank had to raise their interest rates. LEGAL at the time of the action, however,morally wrong (in my opinion) - - and I stand by that.
I don't agree at all that it was morally wrong. It happens all the time.
The difference in our arguments is that the cc companies have been morally wrong regardless of TARP. Your argument is solely based upon TARP....
Thank you for finally making an HONEST disagreement argument, instead of putting words in my mouth.
You can disagree with my opinion as much as you'd like. I learn from others and their opinions. However, what I took great exception to was your claiming I was stating that it was somehow "illegal". I never made any such claim.
Since you later added the last part, let me respectfully disagree with you right there. I fully believe that the cc companies were morally wrong to do it ANYTIME. I specifically said that it was the SAME environment that you yourself claimed cover for BofA ignoring the workers wages. -- Nothing in the LAW or the TARP said they had to do otherwise.
I fully agree that the CC co.s were morally wrong. I believe that BofA was ALSO morally wrong.
So you believe the cc have been morrally wrong all along and that BoA was morally wrong only because of TARP. Is that correct?
BTW...I never stated you said anything about illegality. I was the one who said it would be illegal for the gov't to force BoA to pay the workers. And you kept saying that BoA should pay them on moral grounds and because the workers were more or less share holders in BoA. That was the way I took it throughout our debate. I'm not sure what you took exception to, nor was I aware you even took exception to anything until I read your previous post.
The best people to debate with here are the ones who can debate aggressively and even sometimes get a little personal due to their strong convictions...but realize throughout the debate, that it's just a debate. That's the way you seem to be with me, so I engage you. And I enjoy debating and/or agreeing with you, whichever the case may be.
No, my point was that it was ALWAYS morally wrong for a creditor of a business to pull the plug and then claim zero responsibility (not saying FULL) for cleaning up the detritus from that decision (afetr all, they DID make a previous decision to loan- therefore, fish in to bring the employees to work in the first place).
So, no, I do not believe it was wrong ONLY because of the TARP. I believe that it is ACTIONABLE now to change the laws to reflect ADDITIONAL societal responsibilities for any corporation that takes TARP money. It was "morally wrong" before, I feel it should be "Illegal" going forward because of the TARP. I NEVER felt it was morally right before TARP.
I always said BofA was within its current legal responsibilities. My stated believe however, was that claiming zero responsibility to clean up the detritus from something they agreed to build and prosper from in the past was "inherently wrong".
Perhaps lenders will not make predatory loans and screw up the economy if they are not allowed to repackage their irresponsible loans into CDS' and MBO's and simply wipe their hands clean. Also, for those that keep their bad loans, they should pay PART of the detritus cost for their bad decisions instead of letting the employees who EARNED their pay already be left holding the bag. TARP only takes it from being "morally wrong" to (potentially) "illegal".
Ok...Let's say you're a bank and you lend me money to start a company. My company flourishes for a period of time, but then starts to hit the skids. I suddenly realize I'm leveraged to the hilt and my future is doomed, so I decide to close my doors to cut my losses.
Now keep in mind, I'll surely owe you a LOT of money as you were the one extending me credit. So upon closing my doors, I owe my employees 2 weeks pay. Now, are you saying that you have believed all along that YOU should pay my employees? If true, it was MY poor business decisions that caused my company to fail and I am the one who owes those emloyees.
How could you be expected to pay my employees when I already owe you a TON of money that you'll probably never see?
Are you saying even without TARP that you, my bank, should pay these employess and add to your losses?
I guarantee you that will never happen. Nor will any laws change that require TARP banks to pay bankrupt employees any wages due them. There is not even a miniscule chance of that happening. I'd even say that you would not even get one congressman to agree with your idea....well, maybe Barney Frank!
Again, I do not even think a bank receiving TARP money is "morally" obligated to pay those employees. Not even a little.
If it means that i have peace of mind, SO BE IT.
Separate names with a comma.