Actually this is the "Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009", which makes you think we never had any of the above in play before this act.
What is really surprising to me is what was included in the Act that had nothing to do with credit cards.
The government, under Title V -Miscellaneous Provisions," slipped in some questionable legislation.
So why would they mention the following: 1.
Section 511.
Federal Trade Commission Rule Making on Mortgage Lending - this language speaks to "unfair or deceptive acts or practices regarding mortgage loans, which may include unfair or deceptive acts or practices involving loan modifications and foreclosure rescue plans".
This is interesting since the federal government, via its HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program) and HARP (Home Affordable Refinance Program) are the leading advocates in this country to help homeowners modify or refinance their mortgages.
Does this mean the federal government is "unfair or deceptive"?Also, it is interesting, in this country, as a former banker, that everyone but the homeowner is out to get the person or family about to go belly up on their mortgage.
It is a sad commentary to me that personal responsibility by a borrower or debtor takes a backseat to protecting the borrower at all costs from losing his or her home.
We should first uphold the contract (mortgage) and then try to help the borrower who has legitimate reasons for being at risk of not repaying their mortgage debt.
This country was founded, and has flourished, on the basic concept that contracts will be upheld and protected, for the good of all Americans.
We now have a government that is encouraging and begging mortgage companies and banks to forgive part of the principal balance on someone's mortgage.
Why is this only for some and not for others? We set a precedent here by catering to certain people with contracts and not to others with the same type of contract.
2.
Section 512.
Protecting Americans from Violent Crime - The government is looking into the rights of American citizens on whether they have the right to carry a firearm in a U.
S.
National Park or a National Wildlife Refuge.
Although I agree that they should allow U.
S.
citizens to carry firearms in these parks, why is this language in the credit card bill? Before I read this bill, I had no idea this, along with the other topics I am discussing, are in here.
So how would I or any U.
S.
citizen know this was in the bill? The answer is that they would not.
Very confusing and nonsensical.
3.
Section 513.
GAO Study and Report on Fluency in the English Language and Financial Literacy - Are they kidding? That was my first thought.
I believe this part of the bill is a slap in the face to any U.
S.
citizen who is not fluent in the English language.
What we would expect, overwhelmingly, is that those who are not fluent in the English language cannot, for the most part, have a high level of financial literacy.
If I moved to Germany tomorrow (a very tough language to learn and understand, especially for adults who have never spoken the language), I would not only be behind the curve in my understanding of the language, but also with everything that has to do with everyday life, like finances and money.
What is the correct answer here? We already know that those who are not fluent in the language must have an impediment to financial literacy.
I believe we should either mandate that all U.
S.
citizens learn the English language, and that English should be the official language of this country.
If this were the case, those who do not speak English would be forced to learn it.
This would give those people without fluency in the language an opportunity to gain that fluency.
This would be a great help to those people and a help to the country as a whole.
The more people that know and understand finances in this country, the better for the country.
What is really surprising to me is what was included in the Act that had nothing to do with credit cards.
The government, under Title V -Miscellaneous Provisions," slipped in some questionable legislation.
So why would they mention the following: 1.
Section 511.
Federal Trade Commission Rule Making on Mortgage Lending - this language speaks to "unfair or deceptive acts or practices regarding mortgage loans, which may include unfair or deceptive acts or practices involving loan modifications and foreclosure rescue plans".
This is interesting since the federal government, via its HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program) and HARP (Home Affordable Refinance Program) are the leading advocates in this country to help homeowners modify or refinance their mortgages.
Does this mean the federal government is "unfair or deceptive"?Also, it is interesting, in this country, as a former banker, that everyone but the homeowner is out to get the person or family about to go belly up on their mortgage.
It is a sad commentary to me that personal responsibility by a borrower or debtor takes a backseat to protecting the borrower at all costs from losing his or her home.
We should first uphold the contract (mortgage) and then try to help the borrower who has legitimate reasons for being at risk of not repaying their mortgage debt.
This country was founded, and has flourished, on the basic concept that contracts will be upheld and protected, for the good of all Americans.
We now have a government that is encouraging and begging mortgage companies and banks to forgive part of the principal balance on someone's mortgage.
Why is this only for some and not for others? We set a precedent here by catering to certain people with contracts and not to others with the same type of contract.
2.
Section 512.
Protecting Americans from Violent Crime - The government is looking into the rights of American citizens on whether they have the right to carry a firearm in a U.
S.
National Park or a National Wildlife Refuge.
Although I agree that they should allow U.
S.
citizens to carry firearms in these parks, why is this language in the credit card bill? Before I read this bill, I had no idea this, along with the other topics I am discussing, are in here.
So how would I or any U.
S.
citizen know this was in the bill? The answer is that they would not.
Very confusing and nonsensical.
3.
Section 513.
GAO Study and Report on Fluency in the English Language and Financial Literacy - Are they kidding? That was my first thought.
I believe this part of the bill is a slap in the face to any U.
S.
citizen who is not fluent in the English language.
What we would expect, overwhelmingly, is that those who are not fluent in the English language cannot, for the most part, have a high level of financial literacy.
If I moved to Germany tomorrow (a very tough language to learn and understand, especially for adults who have never spoken the language), I would not only be behind the curve in my understanding of the language, but also with everything that has to do with everyday life, like finances and money.
What is the correct answer here? We already know that those who are not fluent in the language must have an impediment to financial literacy.
I believe we should either mandate that all U.
S.
citizens learn the English language, and that English should be the official language of this country.
If this were the case, those who do not speak English would be forced to learn it.
This would give those people without fluency in the language an opportunity to gain that fluency.
This would be a great help to those people and a help to the country as a whole.
The more people that know and understand finances in this country, the better for the country.
Source...