Congress Approves Bill Restricting Credit Card Industry, Allowing Guns in Parks

[Apeman81]

Congress Approves Bill Restricting Credit Card Industry, Allowing Guns in Parks - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

"The House approved the credit card overhaul measures by a vote of 361-64. Those measures would enact new restrictions on the industry, including a requirement that customers penalized by higher interest rates because they missed a payment are given a chance to reclaim their lower rate after six months.

The other measure, to restore a Bush administration policy allowing loaded guns in national parks, had been pushed by conservative Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who persuaded the Senate to add it to its version of the credit card legislation."


I am quite happy that the silly prohibition of loaded guns in national parks is being addressed . Such laws only affect the law abiding.

That being said, I am at odds with the practice of "bundling" disparate measures. Gun control and credit card rules. That’s an interesting pair.

Perhaps our lawmakers would best served not doing so. In the article, the House chose to have separate votes on each of the two measures, though they were bundled. Why not simply unbundle them?

[Jack]

By bundling these unrelated bills with ones likely to be passed they hope to avoid debate on the attached bills. They suspect if presented by itself their bill might not pass. This is an underhanded method and one I wish had been prohibited ages ago. But since both parties abuse the system to get bills passed that otherwise would be ignored there won't be any meaningful reform any time soon.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Jack By bundling these unrelated bills with ones likely to be passed they hope to avoid debate on the attached bills. They suspect if presented by itself their bill might not pass. This is an underhanded method and one I wish had been prohibited ages ago. But since both parties abuse the system to get bills passed that otherwise would be ignored there won't be any meaningful reform any time soon.

Agreed.

As well, this technique is used to "free" proposals "trapped in committee” by members not wishing to allow a vote they fear they will lose.

[Chaossaber314]

Coincidentally, it wouldn't be a feasible tactic if congress would read the bills they pass.

[tinybear]

For most, Congress is just one big ego trip at public expense. For some, Congress is a stepping stone to the Presidency.

And I didn't even know that Bills can be bundled together even if they are completely unrelated! What kind of logic is this?

[Jack]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Coincidentally, it wouldn't be a feasible tactic if congress would read the bills they pass.

Typical liberal/hippy/socialist attitude. Next they'll be demanding a full day's work for a full day's pay. Won't be happy until they've forced legislators to be ethical and responsible.

How could we possibly keep the country going if we allowed ethical and responsible people, men and women who read the rules they put in place and perform their jobs with honesty and transparency, to hold positions of power?

I wouldn't be surprised if they occasionally bury a bill within another package of legislation that actually contradicts the other bills in the same package.

[PhysicsPokka]

I couldn't understand why would they kept taking the rights from those who are very responibilities with the guns.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Jack Typical liberal/hippy/socialist attitude. Next they'll be demanding a full day's work for a full day's pay. Won't be happy until they've forced legislators to be ethical and responsible. How could we possibly keep the country going if we allowed ethical and responsible people, men and women who read the rules they put in place and perform their jobs with honesty and transparency, to hold positions of power? I wouldn't be surprised if they occasionally bury a bill within another package of legislation that actually contradicts the other bills in the same package.

At least If they don't, you can count on the next administration making it a goal of rendering the prior irrelevant in terms of legislation. I suppose that neutralizing legislation within legislation would speed the process up.

[RickSp]

I plan on always carrying my Capital One Kevlar Visa card in my left shirt pocket (over my heart) in the national parks just in case any stray bullets are flying around.

Regarding the reading of bills, the Party of No Republicans are apparently planning to try to bog down the upcoming climate change legislation in committee by demanding that the 900 page bill be read aloud. The Democrats have responded by hiring a professional speed reader.

[Trojan_Ripper]

I like the Kevlar visa comment Rick


So when writing these bills who is responsible for saying “Okay lets bundle these all together?”

Does a Democrat get with a Republican and say, “For both of us to get what we want we’ll just put them together and Obama will have to sign them?”

Unbelievable

[Praxius]

Quote by: Apeman81 Congress Approves Bill Restricting Credit Card Industry, Allowing Guns in Parks - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com "The House approved the credit card overhaul measures by a vote of 361-64. Those measures would enact new restrictions on the industry, including a requirement that customers penalized by higher interest rates because they missed a payment are given a chance to reclaim their lower rate after six months. The other measure, to restore a Bush administration policy allowing loaded guns in national parks, had been pushed by conservative Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who persuaded the Senate to add it to its version of the credit card legislation." I am quite happy that the silly prohibition of loaded guns in national parks is being addressed . Such laws only affect the law abiding. That being said, I am at odds with the practice of "bundling" disparate measures. Gun control and credit card rules. That’s an interesting pair. Perhaps our lawmakers would best served not doing so. In the article, the House chose to have separate votes on each of the two measures, though they were bundled. Why not simply unbundle them?

Because one will support the other, regardless of differences. The Dems like the idea of regulating credit card companies, as well they should.... but to get this passed, the Republicans wanted something in return.

Kinda sad.

I dunno.... I don't see a point in needing a firearm going to a park.

A park's a place to relax, I always thought..... .if you need to bring a gun and everybody else around you has a gun.... what's the point in going to the park in the first place?

I wouldn't be relaxing in a park like that, and I'd probably not even goto it because of this fact. Regardless of people thinking it only affects law-biding citizens, everybody is law-biding until they break the law.

[Praxius]

Oh and similar relation:

Credit card bills to provide truer picture of debt (Canada)
CTV.ca | Credit card bills to provide truer picture of debt

"Credit card companies will give customers a three-week grace period for interest on credit card purchases, one of several new industry regulations announced by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty on Thursday. "Federally regulated credit card issuers will have to provide consumers with a minimum 21-day, interest-free grace period on all new purchases when the consumers pay their balance in full by the due date," he said at a Toronto news conference on Thursday morning. Flaherty said that most credit cards currently offer 15-to-24 day grace periods, with the majority offering the three-week grace period required under the new regulations. But many of these companies also charge consumers on the interest that accrues during the grace period, he said, even if their balances are paid in full that month. This can also be true if a consumer carries a balance from one month to another. "If a consumer carries a balance from one month to another, some cards give that consumer essentially no grace period on new purchases" Flaherty said. "They charge interest on the full balance immediately on both the previous balance and the new purchases." The grace period is one of several regulations Flaherty announced on behalf of the government. Another major change is that credit card companies will have to print "all salient information" in a summary box on monthly statements, clearly showing the annual interest rates for purchases and cash advances. "This will improve clarity and move this information out of the fine print," Flaherty said. The new information box must also contain the credit card's annual fee, information that is often missing on current credit statements......."

Additional things are also listed, but it would seem the Credit Card Companies are in the spotlight for the time being.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Praxius I dunno.... I don't see a point in needing a firearm going to a park. A park's a place to relax, I always thought..... .if you need to bring a gun and everybody else around you has a gun.... what's the point in going to the park in the first place?

Just as at the theater, restaurant, city park, the mall, etc, you may unwittingly be surrounded by people who are carrying a concealed weapon. Legally or not. (Hopefully, this knowledge does not adversely affect your ability to relax in public places ;-)). Carrying a weapon does not adversely affect my ability to relax. It should not affect yours either.

As for the why of carrying a weapon, let’s just say that not everyone who goes to the park is interested in your ability to relax. Better to have and not need than to need and not have. Personal choice.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Apeman81 Just as at the theater, restaurant, city park, the mall, etc, you may unwittingly be surrounded by people who are carrying a concealed weapon. Legally or not. (Hopefully, this knowledge does not adversely affect your ability to relax in public places ;-)). Carrying a weapon does not adversely affect my ability to relax. It should not affect yours either. As for the why of carrying a weapon, let’s just say that not everyone who goes to the park is interested in your ability to relax. Better to have and not need than to need and not have. Personal choice.

Perhaps, but I have not required or needed to use a firearm yet in my life to defend myself, and I could safely say that everybody in my family have never required one either, and lived to a ripe old age for most.

Could it happen?

Sure.... but a plane could also crash into my apartment. I do live under a flight path afterall...... but I'm not going to worry about needing to protect myself. If it's going to happen, it will happen.

Of course I've been attacked a few times in the past by some dumbasses, but none had a gun and I held my own without requiring one. If they have a gun, well I would probably put myself in the mindset that I'm probably going to die one way or another, so I might as well go for their gun at the first logical opportunity and attempt to lodge some bullets into them before they do to me.

I'm not saying I'm magical or that I could pull this off easily or at all..... but based on my own personal training and past experiences, it's not going to hurt anymore or less if I don't try.

And hypothetically, if I did end up shooting the jerk with his own gun, then that'd sorta counter the whole argument of a gun being able to protect you, wouldn't it?

Afterall, it was his gun that ended up killing him..... quite the M. Night Shyamalan twist, eh?

[ceser]

Quote by: Praxius I don't see a point in needing a firearm going to a park. A park's a place to relax, I always thought..... .if you need to bring a gun and everybody else around you has a gun.... what's the point in going to the park in the first place? I wouldn't be relaxing in a park like that, and I'd probably not even goto it because of this fact. Regardless of people thinking it only affects law-biding citizens, everybody is law-biding until they break the law.

We're not talking city parks here where people come to walk their dogs. These are National Parks hundreds to thousands of square miles in size where people go to get some adventure and see some amazing sights and wildlife. The primary reason anyone wants to carry a gun in national park is bears - black and grizzly bears - along with mountain lions. Even if an attack is unlikely, I don't see why we should restrict people from carrying guns in the parks just in case. I know of a lot of Fish and wildlife service jobs in Alaska where carrying a 12-gauge is definitely standard procedure in the woods.

[RickSp]

The firearms-fetishists and other wing-nuts have been screaming that Obama is a "gun-grabber" and yet he will be signing this bill. I doubt however that this will bring the fanatics any closer to reality.

[Praxius]

Quote by: ceser We're not talking city parks here where people come to walk their dogs. These are National Parks hundreds to thousands of square miles in size where people go to get some adventure and see some amazing sights and wildlife. The primary reason anyone wants to carry a gun in national park is bears - black and grizzly bears - along with mountain lions. Even if an attack is unlikely, I don't see why we should restrict people from carrying guns in the parks just in case. I know of a lot of Fish and wildlife service jobs in Alaska where carrying a 12-gauge is definitely standard procedure in the woods.

Well then I stand corrected, as I was under the impression that it was them little city parks.

Of course when you head deep into the forest, even if it's a national park, you may come accross some bigger animals who are in a hissy fit.... to a remote degree I see reason for allowing firearms in that situation.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp The firearms-fetishists and other wing-nuts have been screaming that Obama is a "gun-grabber" and yet he will be signing this bill. I doubt however that this will bring the fanatics any closer to reality.

An excellent segue back into the theme of the thread. We see that two very different objectives are bundled together, each being completely independent of the other. Why?

The President is likely to sign the bill. It creates a catch 22 for him. If he is against the gun portion of the bill, and refuses to sign the bill, He will be accused of being “in bed” with the credit card companies. If he is against the further interference of the federal government in the banking system, and votes no, he will be called antigun.

In both cases, it is disingenuous. Why force a Hobson’s choice?

I understand why they do it. I don’t know why we let them do it.

[RickSp]

Even if the gun bill was not bundled with the credit card bill I doubt Obama would veto it. Given everything else that is going on, this doesn't look like a battle worth fighting, even if he was opposed to it, which he may or may not be. He had the opportunity to contest a similar court case over a month ago and chose not to.

Obama won't fight ban on loaded guns in national parks

[Goyboy]

Quote by: Apeman81 I am at odds with the practice of "bundling" disparate measures. Gun control and credit card rules. That’s an interesting pair. Perhaps our lawmakers would best served not doing so. In the article, the House chose to have separate votes on each of the two measures, though they were bundled. Why not simply unbundle them?

Bundling is an old congressional custom practiced by Democrats and Republicans alike. I don't like the custom, either, but I don't expect it to go away unless the U.S. Constitution is amended to give the President the authority to make line-item vetos.