I have reproduced the following very important message entitled, “Senate to tackle Credit Card Reform: Respond Now!,” from an email sent to me by Consumer Action:
Consumer Action has learned that there will be a mark-up of Senator Chris Dodd’s bill (S 414) offering strong consumer protections on Tuesday, March 31. It’s really important for your Senators to hear from you right now. Today, take the time to send an email saying you support the bill.
Click here to Take Action Now!
This Monday, we will also send you a Call Alert, asking you to take the time to call your Senator’s office. Please try to make the call.
Senator Dodd (D-CT) has introduced a strong bill, the Credit CARD Act of 2009, to protect credit card users. The newly introduced Senate Bill would prevent “any-time, any reason” increases in interest rates and terms. S 414 would bar credit card issuers from increasing interest rates on cardholders in good standing because of a problem with another lender (universal default).
It would prevent issuers from changing the terms of a credit card contract for the length of the card agreement and allow customers who close their accounts to pay under the existing terms.
The bill would require interest rate increases to apply only to future credit card debt and ensure that payments are first applied to the credit card balance with the highest rate of interest, to minimize finance charges.
The bill would get rid of many traps, including:
- early deadlines for credit card payments
- fees to pay a credit card by mail, telephone, electronic transfer, or any other way
- multiple over-limit fees for exceeding a card limit
The bill requires issuers to offer consumers a fixed credit limit that can’t be exceeded. It would ensure that issuers lower penalty rates after six months, if the cardholder has no further violations, and that cardholders will always be given 45 days’ warning of any allowable interest rate increases.
If passed, issuers would be required to provide disclosures to consumers upon card renewal when the card terms have changed.
The bill would require all applicants under 21 to provide:
- the signature of a parent, guardian, or other individual who will take responsibility for the debt,
- proof that the applicant has an independent means of repaying the credit card debt, or
- proof that the applicant has completed a certified financial literacy course
In addition, young people who are at least 18, but not yet 21, must make a proactive choice (“opt in”) if they want to receive credit card solicitations.
The site above also has a “tell a friend” link, so that you can help spread the message via email as well.
Loading ...
on Mar 28th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
whatsamatter Dodd?
Did the campaign contribution check bounce or did you just blow the money in a gay bathhouse with your buddy Barney?
on Mar 28th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
My letter includes the following statement, “I am one of the 400,000 customers that Chase recently targeted by adding
a new $10 monthly finance charge, and tripling the minimum monthly
payment. While it appears that Chase is now backing down on the fee, they
continue to trash my reputation by stating to the media that these charges
are “tied to a small percentage of customers that have made little
progress in paying down these loans”. This is an outright lie! In my
case, I have paid down over 40% of the loan principal in 2 years, and was
on track to finish paying it off within another 2. Note that Chase is in
no hurry for customers with high interest rates to finish paying off their
loans anywhere nearly so quickly. I feel that my reputation has been
damaged by these lies. I have made every payment on-time, and in many
cases for more than the minimum payment due. I have fully lived up to the
terms of the agreement. Chase on the other hand, has not!”
PS Can someone make Marv go away?
on Mar 29th, 2009 at 4:17 am
My letter includes the following statement, “I am one of the 400,000 customers that Chase recently targeted by adding
a new $10 monthly finance charge, and tripling the minimum monthly
payment. While it appears that Chase is now backing down on the fee, they
continue to trash my reputation by stating to the media that these charges
are “tied to a small percentage of customers that have made little
progress in paying down these loans”. This is an outright lie! In my
case, I have paid down over 40% of the loan principal in 2 years, and was
on track to finish paying it off within another 2. Note that Chase is in
no hurry for customers with high interest rates to finish paying off their
loans anywhere nearly so quickly. I feel that my reputation has been
damaged by these lies. I have made every payment on-time, and in many
cases for more than the minimum payment due. I have fully lived up to the
terms of the agreement. Chase on the other hand, has not!”
PS Can someone make Marv go away?
P.S. – Sorry, forgot to tell you great post!
on Mar 29th, 2009 at 4:58 am
Make Marv go away?
Sure, it’s possible. How it is that you are angry that I alluded to the fact that Dodd is the guy who together with Tiny Time (the treasury chief) just let AIG take all that dough for bonuses to the guys who started this mess. Dodd received more Campaign $ from AIG than any other candidate. OBama #2.
When they were caught they initially denied it, then blamed each other then threatened a new tax to recover it.
Dodd together with Barney Frank sit on headed committees which loosened regulations on banking which resulted in this mess. Barney Frank was living with the head of Fanny Mae (Herbert Moses) at the time and since this was very lucrative for a man he referred to as his “spouse” his support was a conflict which did not serve his constituency well.
Barney received $40,000 in campaign funds from Fanny in the next congressional election.
I point this out, and the well meaning victim wants me to go away? Does that mean you already know these things and don’t consider them important or that you just feel guilty and want to deny your personal involvement by voting for the bad guys who changed the law in return for pay from its beneficiaries?
Shoot the messenger
on Mar 29th, 2009 at 10:42 am
I can do without the “gay bathhouse” remarks. Regardless of how you feel about Senator Dodd’s personal life, S414 is a major step forward in regulating the activities of credit card companies, and well worth supporting.
on Mar 29th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Marv, they all receive money – the system is rotten. Watch Moore’s film with a wonderful scene with Bush and his constituency “those who have and … have more.”
on Mar 29th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Yeah Anna, I have never heard a Rush broadcast, but I know why you fear him so. Mike Moore is your idea of objectivity.
I accept your premise that most political candidates take money from special interests but I think all, is clearly and overstatement.
Your rationalization leaves unaddressed the critical point that all those who take money cannot be the recipient of the highest and second highest contributions from AIG, those honors belong to Chis Dodd and Barak Obama respectively.
All those who recieve funds from special interests do not perform quid pro quo post haste.
on Mar 30th, 2009 at 2:52 am
Marv,
Moore doesn’t claim to be objective; I didn’t say he is objective.
I did mention a scene in his film – pure documentary – nothing to be objective or not – your guy (GWB) in tuxedo displaying his wisdom, his constituents in tuxedos displaying their wisdom. A pearl.
Ah, the scene was filmed in the land of Katrina and 50 million of uninsured
(couldn’t resist)
I do prefer a person who believes that human beings are human beings and as such should have access to health care to a person who believes that only the rich and (criminal – couldn’t resist) should have access to health care. Just personal preferences.
on Mar 30th, 2009 at 4:49 am
Anna, you once again fail to mention the devils you choose to deal with in pursuit of that aim (in this case universal healthcare). Why no defense of the quid pro?
Sorry, but our constitution does not mandate that goverment take our dollar, skim 54% and then return 46% to different and presumably more deserving or needy citizens.
By the way, I took no position on GWB either,but since I have not blamed him for the damage currently being done or the criminal activities of current leaders you assume I suppose that he is my guy.
FYI, my guy ran against bot Bush and “big ears”. Said no to special interest money and crusaded for campaing finance reform his entire political life. He also was a true american hero which no opponant has ever had the gaul to disparage.
on Mar 31st, 2009 at 5:49 pm
I just listened to the entire mark-up of Dodds s-414 bill during todays Senate committee. Mr Dodd did a wonderful job trying to keep things on track and making sure that this moves forward. I don’t know who is bending the ear of some of our senators, (I can only guess!!) but some are using the excuse that this will tighten the credit avaliable to low risk consumers and they will have to pay higher rates to make up for the rest. EXCUSE ME but isn’t that what Chase just did already? Some feel that we would be taking risk based pricing away from the cc industry and lowering their profits. They are not using risk based pricing they are using anyway, anytime we feel like it pricing. Senator Dodds reply to that was,”Ive never seen it go the other way, only up” Great remark Senator Dodd!! Make SURE you contact your senator’s, the time is NOW as we may never get another chance and July of 2010 will not be soon enough for reg’s that can be changed at a whim without congress aproval.