The following article appeared tonight on MSNBC.com. The key ingredients contained in the article include a Bush proposal to issue consumers a free credit reports each year along with information to help them ensure accuracy and prevent fraud. Also, the article states that parts of the FCRA expire 01/01/2004 unless Congress acts. Another provision would entitle people denied favorable interest rates because of their credit histories to demand an explanation of the decision. Here is the article: http://www.msnbc.com/news/933298.asp?0cv=CB20 Buckets
It would be NICE if it was changed to include that any information addressed to the credit card/loan holder from the issuing company...BE ASSUMED 100% CORRECT...no CRA would need to contact the credit card/loan company...to confirm that the letter is correct. THE CRA'S HAVE NO BUSINESS ASSUMING THAT THE CREDIT CARD COMPANY/LOAN COMPANY IS LYING IN THE LETTER!!!
MORE~~they can NOT ASSUME you ALWAYS want the account removed...(if the company does not respond) I disputed AMEX BLUE CREDIT LIMIT N/A..."I WANT IT $15,500" THEY REMOVED IT...FOREVER!!! (EXPERIAN) Had I known...I would have just left it N/A
If Bush and the republicans amend FCRA at all you can bet it will be utterly gutted. They will do something like put in a required free credit report and tout how consumer friendly they are while eviscerating the liability provisions.
Why must these proposed changes to the FCRA turn into political mudslinging? Both parties have had their share of faults. If the republicans really had an alternative agenda, they would simply allow those portions of the FCRA to expire silently in January. To say that because the republicans are involved and they ~may~ change the current provisions of the FCRA is like shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. It's too early to tell, give them a chance. However, if the republicans choose to water down the FCRA, I will be one of the first critics of the plan. IMHO blaming Democrats or Republicans for the current problems in the way things are in this country do nothing to solve those issues. We need to communicate directly to those that are representing us, and if we become dissatisfied with that representative, we then have the power to remove that person. But it takes more than voting down party lines to accomplish that task. It takes time and effort into really knowing the candidate that is running for office. If you gave someone 2 trillion dollars, wouldnâ??t you want to know everything about that person? PolarisA3
polarisa3: It's too early to tell, give them a chance. However, if the republicans choose to water down the FCRA, I will be one of the first critics of the plan. Butch: Me too! Butch, possibly critiquing the words or actions of the Republicans?! This I gotta see... wajaba
lol, Wajaba you're a riot. Believe me I do have numerous problems with Repubs. too. But I shant Highjack this posters thread. ~
Ah, I was just messin' with ya. I am very interested to see how this whole thing with the FCRA plays out, though... wajaba
Most common folk don't criticize Republicans because they don't actually READ THE LEGISLATION and thus don't actually realize what is happening. It is support based on ignorance, pure and simple. I hope you guys do a better job of reading the FCRA in preparation for lawsuits than you did for this thread. Only the 1996 amendments that created the federal so-called privacy privacy provisions has a sunset clause. The debate now is essentially whether to continue the PREEMPTION provisions in that section - in other words prohibit states from creating tougher privacy laws. For example, there is a plan in California to prohibit lenders from sharing information about you with other institutions unless you opt IN. Under the current FCRA with preemption that state law would not be enforceable. Guess who is supporting the extension of the preemption clause. The, um, CRAs and banks. Guess who opposes it. The, um, consumer groups. And if other provisions of FCRA are amended in any substantive way as a result of the tinkering over this one minor clause guess who will get screwed. Yup, you.
And what we're trying to teach you is that unless you get Grey Davis' (and those of his ilk) sorry butt the heck out of the now Bankrupt California, the FCRA will be the most microscopic of all your problems. Perhaps you missed my thread "Absolutely Must Read". Which speaks of the "sunset" issue.
Yeah, gray davis.....that's a good response when ignorance on the topic of this thread is exposed. Change the topic. The most astonishing thing about this whole davis thing is that republicans, again, are just incredibly short sighted. Do you really think that's a good precedent to set....one year after electing a governor if his/her poll numbers drop we hold another election. Great precedent. Because dems would never think of doing the same thing, right? Or maybe you just figure that Dems don't have enough fat cats to support such a campaign? And of course that whole 38 billion deficit couldn't possibly have anything to do with the utterly inept republicans in the oval office, senate and house that can't drive an economy unless you put a cliff in front of them. Nope. Nothing at all. The old fat cats in your party nominated an imbecile and because of that self-inflicted wound lost the california election. Now grow up. Wait til next time. Or maybe you think do-overs are the adult way to conduct politics. Maybe you should instead consider picking up your basketball and going home to cry to mommy. She'll make it all better.
