Any one notice nobody has pressed the credit card companies to lower their interest rates during this crisis? It is of no coincidence that Joe Biden got into bed with the CC companies as well.

What are you, a communist or something?   Why would they lower their interest rates?  They're going to have enough trouble with bad loans, why would they then shoot themselves in the foot by lowering interest rates?

Poor babies. How will they cope with not collecting their 21% APR from the unqualified victims they fed preapproved mailers to 3 times a month?

Everyone else seems to recognize people needing a financial break right now. Guess I'm a communist for suggesting the CC companies follow suit,  lol.

---

Some people are already starting to get their stimulus payments. Some people received deposits today. More will be coming next week on Wednesday April 15. I saw reports that about 60 million deposits will start to be made between now, next Wednesday and shortly after that, for people who gave the IRS their direct deposit information. It's being reported that paper checks will start to be sent out in early May at about five million checks a week. The IRS also now has a link where non filers can put in information to file a simple return, to get their payments. And later on this month the IRS is supposed to create a portal for people who have filed, but need to provide/update their direct deposit information.

---

If you're waiting on a printed stimulus check, there will be a slight delay:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...story.html

"The Treasury Department has ordered President Trump’s name be printed on stimulus checks the Internal Revenue Service is rushing to send to tens of millions of Americans, a process that could slow their delivery by a few days, senior IRS officials said."

---

Got my #fakemoney and put it straight into savings. Might as well earn some interest on it and further compound the impending inflationary problem.

---

If you're waiting on a printed stimulus check, there will be a slight delay:  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...story.html

"The Treasury Department has ordered President Trump’s name be printed on stimulus checks the Internal Revenue Service is rushing to send to tens of millions of Americans, a process that could slow their delivery by a few days, senior IRS officials said."

"Trump had privately suggested to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who oversees the IRS, to allow the president to formally sign the checks, according to three administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly."

But then...

"A Treasury Department representative, however, denied any delay and said the plan all along was to issue the checks next week.


“Economic Impact Payment checks are scheduled to go out on time and exactly as planned—there is absolutely no delay whatsoever,” the representative said in a written statement. She said this was a faster process than the stimulus checks the George W. Bush administration issued in 2008 to head off a looming recession.

“In fact, we expect the first checks to be in the mail early next week which is well in advance of when the first checks went out in 2008 and well in advance of initial estimates,” the statement said."


So anonymous statements versus a written statement which they fail to attribute. Hmmm...

"Democracy Dies in Darkness"

---

If you're waiting on a printed stimulus check, there will be a slight delay:  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...story.html

"The Treasury Department has ordered President Trump’s name be printed on stimulus checks the Internal Revenue Service is rushing to send to tens of millions of Americans, a process that could slow their delivery by a few days, senior IRS officials said."

This is kind of a BS story. Yes, Trump insisted on having his name and signature on the checks, which is kind of a dick move for campaign grandstanding, but when has an American politician who wants to continue being a politician done anything that isn't? The "delay" part has been exaggerated.

---

What are you, a communist or something?   Why would they lower their interest rates?  They're going to have enough trouble with bad loans, why would they then shoot themselves in the foot by lowering interest rates?

Poor babies. How will they cope with not collecting their 21% APR from the unqualified victims they fed preapproved mailers to 3 times a month?

Everyone else seems to recognize people needing a financial break right now. Guess I'm a communist for suggesting the CC companies follow suit,  lol.

Yay capitalism! 

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

What are you, a communist or something?   Why would they lower their interest rates?  They're going to have enough trouble with bad loans, why would they then shoot themselves in the foot by lowering interest rates?

Poor babies. How will they cope with not collecting their 21% APR from the unqualified victims they fed preapproved mailers to 3 times a month?

Everyone else seems to recognize people needing a financial break right now. Guess I'm a communist for suggesting the CC companies follow suit,  lol.

Holy horse feathers, we agree. In fairness, though, a lot of credit card companies are already forgiving late payments, but yeah, it would be nice to see something like 50% of interest written off from March through June. In fact, I'd be curious to see if any of the major credit card issuers are getting stimulus funds. If they are, and they aren't passing some of that back to consumers, I'd argue that's a bit of a problem.

---

Poor babies. How will they cope with not collecting their 21% APR from the unqualified victims they fed preapproved mailers to 3 times a month?

Everyone else seems to recognize people needing a financial break right now. Guess I'm a communist for suggesting the CC companies follow suit,  lol.

Holy horse feathers, we agree. In fairness, though, a lot of credit card companies are already forgiving late payments, but yeah, it would be nice to see something like 50% of interest written off from March through June. In fact, I'd be curious to see if any of the major credit card issuers are getting stimulus funds. If they are, and they aren't passing some of that back to consumers, I'd argue that's a bit of a problem.

Based on TRM's post history, I am baffled he would side with the CC companies. Then again, Joe Biden does, so I guess it is ok.

---

Holy horse feathers, we agree. In fairness, though, a lot of credit card companies are already forgiving late payments, but yeah, it would be nice to see something like 50% of interest written off from March through June. In fact, I'd be curious to see if any of the major credit card issuers are getting stimulus funds. If they are, and they aren't passing some of that back to consumers, I'd argue that's a bit of a problem.

Based on TRM's post history, I am baffled he would side with the CC companies. Then again, Joe Biden does, so I guess it is ok.

TRM has always stated that he is a capitalist.

---

If you're waiting on a printed stimulus check, there will be a slight delay:  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...story.html

"The Treasury Department has ordered President Trump’s name be printed on stimulus checks the Internal Revenue Service is rushing to send to tens of millions of Americans, a process that could slow their delivery by a few days, senior IRS officials said."

"Trump had privately suggested to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who oversees the IRS, to allow the president to formally sign the checks, according to three administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly."

But then...

"A Treasury Department representative, however, denied any delay and said the plan all along was to issue the checks next week.


“Economic Impact Payment checks are scheduled to go out on time and exactly as planned—there is absolutely no delay whatsoever,” the representative said in a written statement. She said this was a faster process than the stimulus checks the George W. Bush administration issued in 2008 to head off a looming recession.

“In fact, we expect the first checks to be in the mail early next week which is well in advance of when the first checks went out in 2008 and well in advance of initial estimates,” the statement said."


So anonymous statements versus a written statement which they fail to attribute. Hmmm...

"Democracy Dies in Darkness"

More like "Democracy is drowning in Bull [BLEEP]"

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Based on TRM's post history, I am baffled he would side with the CC companies. Then again, Joe Biden does, so I guess it is ok.

TRM has always stated that he is a capitalist.

But are you a Crony Capitalist? That's what those who support corporations getting public money that they don't pass back through to the consumer are. I have zero issues with the Feds mandating specific behaviors for those companies that choose to take the money, though I do not support the Fed forcing companies to take the money. If they get in bed with the Feds then the Feds should be ensuring that the public money benefits the public. I think you would agree.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

TRM has always stated that he is a capitalist.

But are you a Crony Capitalist? That's what those who support corporations getting public money that they don't pass back through to the consumer are. I have zero issues with the Feds mandating specific behaviors for those companies that choose to take the money, though I do not support the Fed forcing companies to take the money. If they get in bed with the Feds then the Feds should be ensuring that the public money benefits the public. I think you would agree.

That sounds like back-door nationalization to me.  If the federal government forces a business to close, then offers bailout money, but only if the company operates in a way prescribed by the federal government, haven't they basically nationalized that company?  

[It's also ironic that people who support widespread deregulation now want to impose a whole bunch of regulations on these companies.]  

So it sounds like you think that if the government bails out a company, they should take the opportunity to take control over it.  Otherwise, they can go out of business.  Is that your position?

And I would add, if the government forces the CC companies to lower their interest rates in order to accept a bailout, then the government is using my tax money to subsidize someone else's credit card debt.   I don't want to subsidize someone else's irresponsibility.

---

Holy horse feathers, we agree. In fairness, though, a lot of credit card companies are already forgiving late payments, but yeah, it would be nice to see something like 50% of interest written off from March through June. In fact, I'd be curious to see if any of the major credit card issuers are getting stimulus funds. If they are, and they aren't passing some of that back to consumers, I'd argue that's a bit of a problem.

Based on TRM's post history, I am baffled he would side with the CC companies. Then again, Joe Biden does, so I guess it is ok.

I might have a vested interest here, but I'd love to see a condition attached to the airline stimulus that they are required to refund domestic flights booked before March 1st with travel dates up to August 31st, and international flights through the end of the year. But like I said, I'm biased. There are worse things in the world than having a pile of airline credit that you can't use. I think.

---

But are you a Crony Capitalist? That's what those who support corporations getting public money that they don't pass back through to the consumer are. I have zero issues with the Feds mandating specific behaviors for those companies that choose to take the money, though I do not support the Fed forcing companies to take the money. If they get in bed with the Feds then the Feds should be ensuring that the public money benefits the public. I think you would agree.

That sounds like back-door nationalization to me.  If the federal government forces a business to close, then offers bailout money, but only if the company operates in a way prescribed by the federal government, haven't they basically nationalized that company?  My position is that they shouldn't be forcing businesses to close.

[It's also ironic that people who support widespread deregulation now want to impose a whole bunch of regulations on these companies. Regulation in exchange for a handout, not different than regulating welfare.  

So it sounds like you think that if the government bails out a company, they should take the opportunity to take control over it.  Otherwise, they can go out of business.  Is that your position? A handout comes with strings, fro the term of a loan but especially if it doesn't have to be paid back.

And I would add, if the government forces the CC companies to lower their interest rates in order to accept a bailout, then the government is using my tax money to subsidize someone else's credit card debt.   I don't want to subsidize someone else's irresponsibility. Not so, it forces a credit card company to eat into their own profits as a condition of subsidy. I don't really agree with giving them money to begin with but I'm fine with conditions once they agree to accept it.

Health care organizations received a grant from the government over the weekend because of CARES ACT funding. The rules around the grant specify the applications for the funds, if the recipient doesn't use it appropriately it must be paid back. Not significantly different than requiring the CC companies to lower interest rates for a while in exchange for cash flow now. If the money is being paid out then the lender or grantor has a stake and claim to how it's used. As they say in Goodfellas, "[BLEEP] you, pay me."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

That sounds like back-door nationalization to me.  If the federal government forces a business to close, then offers bailout money, but only if the company operates in a way prescribed by the federal government, haven't they basically nationalized that company?  My position is that they shouldn't be forcing businesses to close.

[It's also ironic that people who support widespread deregulation now want to impose a whole bunch of regulations on these companies. Regulation in exchange for a handout, not different than regulating welfare.  

So it sounds like you think that if the government bails out a company, they should take the opportunity to take control over it.  Otherwise, they can go out of business.  Is that your position? A handout comes with strings, fro the term of a loan but especially if it doesn't have to be paid back.

And I would add, if the government forces the CC companies to lower their interest rates in order to accept a bailout, then the government is using my tax money to subsidize someone else's credit card debt.   I don't want to subsidize someone else's irresponsibility. Not so, it forces a credit card company to eat into their own profits as a condition of subsidy. I don't really agree with giving them money to begin with but I'm fine with conditions once they agree to accept it.

Health care organizations received a grant from the government over the weekend because of CARES ACT funding. The rules around the grant specify the applications for the funds, if the recipient doesn't use it appropriately it must be paid back. Not significantly different than requiring the CC companies to lower interest rates for a while in exchange for cash flow now. If the money is being paid out then the lender or grantor has a stake and claim to how it's used. As they say in Goodfellas, "[BLEEP] you, pay me."

But the benefit of the lower interest rate goes to the people who carry credit card debt.  People who are responsible and do not carry credit card debt do not get this benefit.  In addition, the size of the benefit depends on the size of the debt.  So the more credit card debt you are carrying, the greater the benefit.  Why should the government subsidize people who are irresponsible?

---

Got my #fakemoney and put it straight into savings. Might as well earn some interest on it and further compound the impending inflationary problem.

Shhhhhhhh...  the children will hear u!!

---

Health care organizations received a grant from the government over the weekend because of CARES ACT funding. The rules around the grant specify the applications for the funds, if the recipient doesn't use it appropriately it must be paid back. Not significantly different than requiring the CC companies to lower interest rates for a while in exchange for cash flow now. If the money is being paid out then the lender or grantor has a stake and claim to how it's used. As they say in Goodfellas, "[BLEEP] you, pay me."

But the benefit of the lower interest rate goes to the people who carry credit card debt.  People who are responsible and do not carry credit card debt do not get this benefit.  In addition, the size of the benefit depends on the size of the debt.  So the more credit card debt you are carrying, the greater the benefit.  Why should the government subsidize people who are irresponsible?

So you're good with the CC companies just booking the revenue? Maybe paying out a nice CEO bonus with it? Maybe those airlines can use to buy back a few billion more shares of their stock? I am not good with giving money to them, but if we are going to do so then they need to use it for the public's good. How would you suggest that e.g. Discover do that so that only financially responsible people like you get the benefit and not those losers who might have charged payroll expenses on it last month when their cash flow dried up?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

But the benefit of the lower interest rate goes to the people who carry credit card debt.  People who are responsible and do not carry credit card debt do not get this benefit.  In addition, the size of the benefit depends on the size of the debt.  So the more credit card debt you are carrying, the greater the benefit.  Why should the government subsidize people who are irresponsible?

So you're good with the CC companies just booking the revenue? Maybe paying out a nice CEO bonus with it? Maybe those airlines can use to buy back a few billion more shares of their stock? I am not good with giving money to them, but if we are going to do so then they need to use it for the public's good. How would you suggest that e.g. Discover do that so that only financially responsible people like you get the benefit and not those losers who might have charged payroll expenses on it last month when their cash flow dried up?

Is this all hypothetical, or is a credit card company actually trying to get or going to get CARE act funds?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Health care organizations received a grant from the government over the weekend because of CARES ACT funding. The rules around the grant specify the applications for the funds, if the recipient doesn't use it appropriately it must be paid back. Not significantly different than requiring the CC companies to lower interest rates for a while in exchange for cash flow now. If the money is being paid out then the lender or grantor has a stake and claim to how it's used. As they say in Goodfellas, "[BLEEP] you, pay me."

But the benefit of the lower interest rate goes to the people who carry credit card debt.  People who are responsible and do not carry credit card debt do not get this benefit.  In addition, the size of the benefit depends on the size of the debt.  So the more credit card debt you are carrying, the greater the benefit.  Why should the government subsidize people who are irresponsible?

I mean, they keep paying Trump, so...

---