Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Congress: They're Not Really Working for You

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-02-09 05:29 PM
Original message
Congress: They're Not Really Working for You
Edited on Thu Apr-02-09 05:33 PM by flpoljunkie
U.S. House bill would ease credit card timeframe

Thu April 2, 2009 6:08pm
By John Poirier

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House lawmakers agreed on Thursday to give credit card companies at least one year to rein in unfair practices, dropping an original proposal for a three-month timeframe.

In a voice vote, a House Financial Services subcommittee approved a bill, called the "Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights." The chief sponsor of the bill is U.S. Rep Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat who was seeking to force credit card companies to change their ways within three months.

After a failed effort for faster reforms, Maloney remained optimistic that Congress would vote on a final credit card bill, especially after similar action taken by the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday.

"I'm extremely optimistic that we can deliver this important consumer victory to the president's desk this year," Maloney said.

The full House Financial Services Committee could vote on the bill soon after Congress returns from a two-week April break, aides said.

In December the Federal Reserve adopted a set of rules aimed at curbing what Chairman Ben Bernanke called unfair and deceptive practices by credit card companies. In the rules the Fed gave companies until July 2010 to implement changes.

The rules drew criticism from lawmakers and consumer groups who complained that companies were given too much time to change their practices, which included unilaterally changing terms and shocking consumers with higher interest rates, fees and other questionable billing practices.

The American Bankers Association trade group, which represents the biggest credit card companies, have warned that more rules could make it more difficult to price a customer's risk level and therefore reduce the availability of credit.

"We still believe it is an open question whether any further legislation is necessary," said Ken Clayton, senior vice president for card policy at the ABA. (Of course, they do!)

Banks struggling to emerge from the current financial crisis are trying to halt efforts that could reduce sorely needed revenues such as credit card fees and interest rates. (No shit!)

more...

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USTRE5317Q720090402




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OwnedByFerrets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-02-09 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. They work for the ones who get them elected....the Lobbyist.
At least 85% of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-02-09 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. how long since the Supreme Court ruled that a corporation is a person?
those are the 'people' that get represented.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OwnedByFerrets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-02-09 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. THAT, is an interesting story. They never ruled that way...
even though its taken as common knowledge nowadays.

What most people don't realize is that this is a recent agreement—and it is based on an historic error. Only since 1886 have the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment been applied explicitly to corporations. For 100 years people have believed that the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad included the statement “Corporations are persons.” But looking at the actual case documents, I found that this was never stated by the court, and indeed the chief justice explicitly ruled that matter out of consideration in the case.

The claim that corporations are persons was added by the court reporter who wrote the introduction to the decision, called “headnotes.” Headnotes have no legal standing.

It appears that corporations acquired personhood by persuading a court reporter and a Supreme Court judge to make a notation in the headnotes of an unrelated law case. In Everyman's Constitution, legal historian Howard Jay Graham documents scores of previous attempts by Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Field to influence the legal process to the benefit of his open patrons, the railroad corporations. Field, as judge on the Ninth Circuit in California, had repeatedly ruled that corporations were persons under the 14th Amendment, so it doesn't take much imagination to guess what Field might have suggested Court Recorder J.C. Bancroft Davis include in the transcript, perhaps even offering the language, which happened to match his own language in previous lower court cases.

Alternatively, Davis may have acted on his own initiative. This was no ordinary court reporter. He was well-connected to the levers of power in his world, which in 1880s America were principally the railroads, and had, himself, served as president of the board of a railroad company.

Regardless of how it happened, an amendment to the Constitution, designed to protect the rights of African Americans after the Civil War, passed by Congress, voted on and ratified by the states, and signed into law by the president, was re-interpreted in 1886 for the benefit of corporations. The notion that corporations are persons has never been voted into law by the people or by Congress, and all the court decisions endorsing it derive from the precedent of the 1886 case—from Davis' error.

Other legal errors have been corrected with time. The notions that women aren't persons under the law, (affirmed, for example, in the 1873 Bradwell v. State case) and that blacks aren't entitled to equal protection (decided in the Dred Scott and Plessy cases) were superseded by court cases affirming the full rights of African Americans and women under the law. The establishment of corporate personhood, on the flimsy foundation of a court reporter's insertion of a phrase into a legal summary, may be the next mistake to be corrected, particularly if grassroots efforts continue to challenge the legitimacy of corporate personhood.

Adapted from Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and The Theft of Human Rightsby Thom Hartmann. Published by Rodale, Inc. Available at 800/754-2914 or at www.thomhartmann.com.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-02-09 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. How unsurprising that this error remains uncorrected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OwnedByFerrets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-02-09 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Just more proof of who rules this country and the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glowing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-02-09 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. Bull shit, they are in as much trouble as the banks.. they are trying to get any and every penny in
that they can.. they do not have money to lend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-02-09 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. Voice vote?
Fucking COWARDS!

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-02-09 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
7. Who is on the committee and how did each member vote?
This is truly disgusting. Vote them out of office!!

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-02-09 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. It was a 'voice vote' of the subcommittee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-02-09 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Who is on the committee? They need to be outted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC