Equifax Hit With $70 Billion Lawsuit
09-28-2017, 08:48 AM
#21
Super Moderator
Also:
https://www.creditcards.com/credit-c...ation-1282.php
Don't enter into an arbitration agreement with the Devil, then cry about it because he doesn't play fair. As you can see above, most reputable banks are not requiring arbitration agreements. And when they do, they are up front about it. It just so happens that one of my CC's just switched banks and sent a package that included an arbitration opt-out form. Now, I can either sign the form and send it back, or be one of the lazy mindless consumers that doesn't, then b*tches and moans when they feel cheated later.
No one FORCES you into these agreements. No one forces you to do business with a company that wants arbitration. And no one forced you to sign over your rights with Equifax. If you did, then you didn't read the print because you were LAZY and too eager to get their free sh*t.
Obviously, you want a nanny-state to protect people who feel they're always being cheated, but are really just too lazy to understand the facts of what they got themselves into. Same for those who got into the balloon loans of 2008. They knew full well what they signed and did it anyways.
https://www.creditcards.com/credit-c...ation-1282.php
Don't enter into an arbitration agreement with the Devil, then cry about it because he doesn't play fair. As you can see above, most reputable banks are not requiring arbitration agreements. And when they do, they are up front about it. It just so happens that one of my CC's just switched banks and sent a package that included an arbitration opt-out form. Now, I can either sign the form and send it back, or be one of the lazy mindless consumers that doesn't, then b*tches and moans when they feel cheated later.
No one FORCES you into these agreements. No one forces you to do business with a company that wants arbitration. And no one forced you to sign over your rights with Equifax. If you did, then you didn't read the print because you were LAZY and too eager to get their free sh*t.
Obviously, you want a nanny-state to protect people who feel they're always being cheated, but are really just too lazy to understand the facts of what they got themselves into. Same for those who got into the balloon loans of 2008. They knew full well what they signed and did it anyways.
Here, we agree. I read all of my contracts. I have no credit cards. I do have arbitration clauses in my cell phone terms of service and all of my utilities. They don't offer opt-outs and I don't have alternative providers available. My mortgage also has an arbitration clause, but I'd fight that if needed because my original mortgage didn't. It was added under the "we can change this contract with 30 days notice" provision.
As for the mortgages in '08. My buddy and I still laugh to this day that we both said in '06 that there was a bubble about to burst due to people overextending and loans being repackaged and sold. My own mortgage is one that got sold. I have zero sympathy for those who overextended and was against all of the bailouts. I was against the individual mortgage bailouts and the bank bailouts. I was it the "let it burn" camp.
10-05-2017, 11:20 AM
#22
Moderator
This just gets better and better. Our government is awesome!!!
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2...ct-by-irs.html
While we're at it, let's assign the fat kid to guard the cake.
Then the stock slowly rebounding:
Capture.JPG
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2...ct-by-irs.html
While we're at it, let's assign the fat kid to guard the cake.
Then the stock slowly rebounding:
Capture.JPG
10-05-2017, 11:02 PM
#23
Super Moderator
I actually read that they're putting it out for rebid next year. They granted the one year contract as a stop-gap until they can go through the rebid process. Yes, it's ridiculous haw slow government works.
10-25-2017, 08:48 AM
#24
Moderator
Done deal. Cobra, you all packed for Canada yet?
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2...tion-rule.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/b...tion.html?_r=0
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2...tion-rule.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/b...tion.html?_r=0
10-25-2017, 09:40 AM
#25
Super Moderator
I'd load the orange emperor into a trebuchet and launch his ass into Mexico before I'd leave. So, I guess that nullifies your argument that I was making a false generalization about the GOP.
10-25-2017, 09:47 AM
#26
Moderator
You see them as greedy money-hungry predators, and will probably use this vote as an example. However, this decision has no financial impact on those who are educated enough to know better.
10-25-2017, 10:11 AM
#27
Super Moderator
They are greedy predators, this vote not withstanding. Have you never seen "Wall Street"... Gordon Gecko... "greed is good"? That movie was fiction, but not fantasy.
10-25-2017, 10:19 AM
#28
Moderator
No, they are individuals with their own personal beliefs. I'm on the fence regarding this decision because I can very much see BOTH sides of the issue. One side protects consumers, the other side doesn't want to see lawyers get rich and again screw the consumers with low winnings and future fees to all. Even though I'm on the fence doesn't mean I think one side is greedy because they fell to one side or the other on this issue. Both sides are right on this issue.
That's the problem with you snowflakes these days. You just can't stand that someone has a different opinion than yours.
That's the problem with you snowflakes these days. You just can't stand that someone has a different opinion than yours.
10-25-2017, 09:34 PM
#29
Super Moderator
No, they are individuals with their own personal beliefs. I'm on the fence regarding this decision because I can very much see BOTH sides of the issue. One side protects consumers, the other side doesn't want to see lawyers get rich and again screw the consumers with low winnings and future fees to all. Even though I'm on the fence doesn't mean I think one side is greedy because they fell to one side or the other on this issue. Both sides are right on this issue.
If that's really your concern, that's simple to fix. Limit what lawyers can charge on judgments over a certain amount.
Funny you say that, since my first comment here agreed with your statement and added my own info about what a Senator was doing. You're the one who then posted a contrarian opinion... Snowflake.
10-26-2017, 09:04 AM
#30
Moderator
Funny you say that, since my first comment here agreed with your statement and added my own info about what a Senator was doing. You're the one who then posted a contrarian opinion... Snowflake.
Anyways, what part of this "forced" arbitration do you really have a problem with? And I mean as an individual, not the whole subject. Because it should really boil down to how it affects YOU personally. Are you suffering personally or financially with it?