MaxedOutMama
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
More On The Bankruptcy Bill
Efforts continue to influence the House of Congress to reject the bill. The best source I have found for information and coorditnation of efforts is Politology. They report today that the final vote may be after the Easter recess, a possible indication that they are becoming nervous about the political flak. Well, keep it up, guys!
Other resources include a letter explaining why the bill is poor legislation signed by over a hundred commercial and bankruptcy lawyers. You can read the letter here - basically it is just reiterating the same points. This bill takes away needed discretion from judges. In some circumstances it will cause families in the grip of circumstances beyond their control to lose assets needed to produce income, such as a car or a house which is also a small business location. From the letter:
Please take a moment to read this post up at Just One Minute with suggestions as to additional required disclosures for open-end (revolving) credit offers. It is indeed, as the poster says, frightfully reasonable:
May I respectfully suggest that you take the time to submit a comment asking that the comment deadline be held open until April 29 in view of the related bankruptcy legislation in the Congress? This will truly agitate some of the worst offending companies.
Include Docket No. R-1217 in any comment
To comment by email:
E-mail: regs.comments@federalreserve.gov. Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.
To comment by fax:
FAX: 202/452-3819 or 202/452-3102.
To read the comments already submitted go here.
Here is a link to the proposed rule. This is a very comprehensive rulemaking and it is utterly reasonable to request that the comment period be held open longer. For specific comments, include the section numbers:
Format of Disclosures:
Account-opening disclosures, Q2 – Q3.
Periodic statements, Q4 – Q6.
Credit card application disclosures (the “Schumer box”), Q7 – Q8.
Subsequent disclosures, Q9.
Model forms and clauses, Q10 – Q12.
Content of Disclosures:
Classifying and labeling fees as “finance charges” and “other charges,” Q13 – Q20.
Over-the-credit-limit fees, Q21 – Q22.
“Effective” or “historical” annual percentage rate on periodic statements, Q23 – Q25.
Disclosures about rate changes, Q26 – Q27.
Balance calculation methods, Q28 – Q30.
Minimum payments, Q31 – Q33.
Payment allocation, Q34 – Q36.
Tolerances, Q37.
Other questions, Q38 – Q42.
Substantive protections:
General, Q43.
Accessing credit card accounts, Q44.
“Convenience checks,” Q45.
Unsolicited issuance of credit cards, Q46.
Prompt crediting of payments, Q47 – Q51.
Additional Issues:
Providing guidance not expressly addressed in existing rules, Q52.
Adjusting exceptions based on de minimis amounts, Q53.
Improving plain language and organization; identifying technical revisions, Q54.
Deleting obsolete rules or guidance, Q55.
Recommendations for legislative changes, Q56.
Recommendations for nonregulatory approaches, Q57.
Reviewing other aspects of Regulation Z, Q58
I will be listing specific changes I think reasonable under the circumstances.
Other resources include a letter explaining why the bill is poor legislation signed by over a hundred commercial and bankruptcy lawyers. You can read the letter here - basically it is just reiterating the same points. This bill takes away needed discretion from judges. In some circumstances it will cause families in the grip of circumstances beyond their control to lose assets needed to produce income, such as a car or a house which is also a small business location. From the letter:
Credit card lenders have become more aggressive in marketing their products, and a large, very profitable, market has emerged in subprime lending. Increased risk is part of the business model. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that as credit is extended to riskier and riskier borrowers, a greater number default when faced with a financial reversal. Nonetheless, consumer lending remains highly profitable, even under current law.I don't think this bill should be passed before measures to limit truly outrageous credit practices are also passed. I have explained the problem here. You can contact your representatives here. Politology has also set up something called the people's email network for this purpose.
Please take a moment to read this post up at Just One Minute with suggestions as to additional required disclosures for open-end (revolving) credit offers. It is indeed, as the poster says, frightfully reasonable:
For example, suppose the next letter you received saying “You are Pre-Approved” also told you, on the front of the envelope, that the penalty rate was 30%, that monthly late fees were $35, and that 8% of current card-holders paid late fees or penalty interest at some point in the last three months. Suddenly, that tired old financial planning advice to be near a wastebasket when you go through the mail sounds very sensible.Not only is this an excellent suggestion that should be coupled with the measures I have advocated regarding open-end credit, but it is also very timely. There is currently a rule-making afoot at the FRB with regard to TIL (Reg Z) disclosures for open-end credit. Comments are due March 25th (28th in original release).
May I respectfully suggest that you take the time to submit a comment asking that the comment deadline be held open until April 29 in view of the related bankruptcy legislation in the Congress? This will truly agitate some of the worst offending companies.
Include Docket No. R-1217 in any comment
To comment by email:
E-mail: regs.comments@federalreserve.gov. Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.
To comment by fax:
FAX: 202/452-3819 or 202/452-3102.
To read the comments already submitted go here.
Here is a link to the proposed rule. This is a very comprehensive rulemaking and it is utterly reasonable to request that the comment period be held open longer. For specific comments, include the section numbers:
Format of Disclosures:
Account-opening disclosures, Q2 – Q3.
Periodic statements, Q4 – Q6.
Credit card application disclosures (the “Schumer box”), Q7 – Q8.
Subsequent disclosures, Q9.
Model forms and clauses, Q10 – Q12.
Content of Disclosures:
Classifying and labeling fees as “finance charges” and “other charges,” Q13 – Q20.
Over-the-credit-limit fees, Q21 – Q22.
“Effective” or “historical” annual percentage rate on periodic statements, Q23 – Q25.
Disclosures about rate changes, Q26 – Q27.
Balance calculation methods, Q28 – Q30.
Minimum payments, Q31 – Q33.
Payment allocation, Q34 – Q36.
Tolerances, Q37.
Other questions, Q38 – Q42.
Substantive protections:
General, Q43.
Accessing credit card accounts, Q44.
“Convenience checks,” Q45.
Unsolicited issuance of credit cards, Q46.
Prompt crediting of payments, Q47 – Q51.
Additional Issues:
Providing guidance not expressly addressed in existing rules, Q52.
Adjusting exceptions based on de minimis amounts, Q53.
Improving plain language and organization; identifying technical revisions, Q54.
Deleting obsolete rules or guidance, Q55.
Recommendations for legislative changes, Q56.
Recommendations for nonregulatory approaches, Q57.
Reviewing other aspects of Regulation Z, Q58
I will be listing specific changes I think reasonable under the circumstances.
Comments:
<< Home
Wow MOM, you are one this one... You go girl!
I wrote my congressman last week and called his office. He is Republican, but moderate (I even voted for him). I am hoping he will see the light.
I wrote my congressman last week and called his office. He is Republican, but moderate (I even voted for him). I am hoping he will see the light.
I'm not giving up. If everyone else doesn't, a little reason will prevail.
Yes, I am trying to get mine to listen to me. If they won't, I say "Throw the bums out." It's hard to know who is working for the people's interests any more. Up at www.politology.us they are listing Reid's statement:
People who have the ability to repay their debts should be required to do so. I support this bill because it puts that principle into law and prevents the abuse of bankruptcy laws.
The bill is flawed in several ways. It does not do enough to protect people who declared bankruptcy due to medical emergencies or military service. It does not do enough to protect the employees of corporations like Enron and Worldcom that declare bankruptcy. And it allows people who engage in unlawful projects to avoid accountability. Democrats offered amendments to address each of these flaws, but they were rejected by the Republican majority. I hope the Congress returns to these important issues in the future.
But even with these flaws, the bill is an improvement over current law and merits my support.
What a load of ##@@#@! Basically I think Reid is a good guy, but he sure took a dive on this one.
Post a Comment
Yes, I am trying to get mine to listen to me. If they won't, I say "Throw the bums out." It's hard to know who is working for the people's interests any more. Up at www.politology.us they are listing Reid's statement:
People who have the ability to repay their debts should be required to do so. I support this bill because it puts that principle into law and prevents the abuse of bankruptcy laws.
The bill is flawed in several ways. It does not do enough to protect people who declared bankruptcy due to medical emergencies or military service. It does not do enough to protect the employees of corporations like Enron and Worldcom that declare bankruptcy. And it allows people who engage in unlawful projects to avoid accountability. Democrats offered amendments to address each of these flaws, but they were rejected by the Republican majority. I hope the Congress returns to these important issues in the future.
But even with these flaws, the bill is an improvement over current law and merits my support.
What a load of ##@@#@! Basically I think Reid is a good guy, but he sure took a dive on this one.
<< Home
