Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: No Blue States
PS: Is it a coincidence that they made this double the old minimum move only after tightening bankruptcy laws? I think not.

If there is a point to those two statements, it eluded me...

106 posted on 12/27/2005 9:06:17 AM PST by Publius6961 (The IQ of California voters is about 420........... .............cumulatively)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: Publius6961

"PS: Is it a coincidence that they made this double the old minimum move only after tightening bankruptcy laws? I think not.
If there is a point to those two statements, it eluded me..."

My point was that if they did this before the bankruptcy laws were tightened the doubling of minimum payments would likely cause some people in deep debt to file for banruptcy.


109 posted on 12/27/2005 9:08:28 AM PST by No Blue States
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

To: Publius6961
The point he was trying to make was - before the bankrupcy laws were changed - people who were deep in credit card debt would file bankrupcy, and the CC companies would be screwed out of their debt - which they would then write off. Now, after the change in the bankrupcy laws, where you can't discharge cc debt, the cc companies up their payment schedules and minimums.

The ultimate point was the laws were written to benefit the cc companies, and give them a circuit subsidy.

111 posted on 12/27/2005 9:09:39 AM PST by Maigrey (Inspired by G_D, guided by JC, and kicked in the (backside) by TC. What a trio!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson