It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrats Kill Amendment Protecting Americans from Credit Discrimination Based on Politics

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tekner
The amendment to the bill explicitly states...


When I just said above we haven't seen the full amendment you said you didn't bring the amendment up. Call me when we have the full amendment if you want to discuss what it allegedly contains and not the double negative hack article from the Original Post.




posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Tekner
The amendment to the bill explicitly states...


When I just said above we haven't seen the full amendment you said you didn't bring the amendment up. Call me when we have the full amendment if you want to discuss what it allegedly contains and not the double negative hack article from the Original Post.


You mean the full bill? We have the full amendment, it was posted on the first page. There is no double negative, it's worded exactly the way the amendment/votes went. I said I didn't bring up the veracity of the article. I don't agree with the reporting either, stating "democrats" voted against as it likely wasn't a fully partisan vote. But that doesn't mean I'll pretend the wording doesn't make sense.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Tekner

Not the bill, the amendment. And if you want to disagree that the article isn't worded properly that's your prerogative.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Tekner

Not the bill, the amendment. And if you want to disagree that the article isn't worded properly that's your prerogative.


Here is the bill www.congress.gov...

the amendment was linked on the first page, and was to be inserted into page 161 line 2 of the bill.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Tekner

I've already looked at the bill, the full amendment hasn't been linked.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

Unless folks read the amendment just know each side has an angle as to why they want this amendment to fail or pass...I'm dubious that the left or the right has out best interest at heart..somehow they or their friends have something to gain from the amendment not passing..

"The system, they say, would mirror the newly minted “social credit system” in place in China, which bans citizens from key social services like public transportation if they lose too many points behaving in a way the Communist Party disapproves of."

I've looked at the Fair Credit Reporting Act section 1681 under Sub chapter III Credit reporting agencies. Also realize that your own state has separate laws pertaining to credit reporting so it may make little difference as to what gets amended..but have at it folks blaming either side...do your own legwork to find out the truth..

As far as the amendment goes it states the following "To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to remove adverse information for certain defaulted or delinquent private education loan borrowers who demonstrate a history of loan repayment, and for other purposes."

So to me the intent is to give folks a pass who have defaulted as a loan borrower despite demonstrating a history of loan repayments...

Just went to the link that that a ATS member provided and I'm not sure where they hell it points to banning citizens for anything...I think it clarifies language around updated terminology, fraudulent reporting timelines and the usual grammar crap...I really wish our members would read this rather than relying on Breitbart to give a accurate assessment...I trust them as much as I trust MSNBC



edit on 31-1-2020 by chrismarco because: (no reason given)



edit on 31-1-2020 by chrismarco because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-1-2020 by chrismarco because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Tekner

I've already looked at the bill, the full amendment hasn't been linked.


Yes it has, the full amendment was linked on the FIRST page of this thread - republicanleader.house.gov...

You can even find it in the congressional record exactly as stated
www.congress.gov...

EDIT: starts at the bottom of page H698 and continues into first part of H699
edit on 31-1-2020 by Tekner because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-1-2020 by Tekner because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

There's so much I want to say on this that I'm flummoxed.

So, I'll go with an old standby that has always served me well.

Are you f#cking kidding me?



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: chrismarco




As far as the amendment goes it states the following "To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to remove adverse information for certain defaulted or delinquent private education loan borrowers who demonstrate a history of loan repayment, and for other purposes."

So to me the intent is to give folks a pass who have defaulted as a loan borrower despite demonstrating a history of loan repayments...


Well, I kinda get that except for the fact that there are *many* of us who did repay our student loans.

Often at great sacrifice.

Hell, I even repaid most of my daughter's student loan.

Do we get a refund or a giant credit bump?



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: mobiusmale

There's so much I want to say on this that I'm flummoxed.

So, I'll go with an old standby that has always served me well.

Are you f#cking kidding me?







Go read the the Congressional Record on the amendment, Mr. Hill made some very good points about the amendment, and Mrs. Beatty's argument is a rambling mess that doesn't address any of the issues he brought up. It's disgusting. The vote failed 201-208.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter
You don't get either but I think you really need to read the amendments to get a grasp of what is changes or what wanted to be changed...the problem with tuition is that the government essentially assures that you will get a loan....when the colleges realized that they were guaranteed money from essentially government issues loans the costs for college just kept skyrocketing...at one time college was affordable...you feed a raccoon once and in a few days the whole family shows up...all the colleges are in on this money grab and the students/tax payers are getting the screw job..some colleges have over a billion in endowments and we keep throwing money at them...



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 03:33 PM
link   
The article is ambiguous and can be taken more than one way. Chalk that up to piss-poor reporting as is common these days.

The article says: "Democrats in the House of Representatives voted on Wednesday against an amendment to a proposed bill that would prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) from forcing credit reporting agencies to evaluate Americans based on political opinions or religious beliefs."

The problem is, do the words "that would prevent" belong with the bill or the amendment? I haven't read the bill but I did read the amendment from the OP's link.

Here are the relevant words from the amendment: "The Bureau may not require, as a condition for a credit scoring model ... etc".

So, clearly, this means the amendment is to prevent the CFPB from using social media to determine credit scores. And, clearly, the House didn't like that idea.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Someone in this thread is wrong and can't admit that they were wrong. Or they need the remedial classes they suggested for others.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tekner

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: mobiusmale

There's so much I want to say on this that I'm flummoxed.

So, I'll go with an old standby that has always served me well.

Are you f#cking kidding me?







Go read the the Congressional Record on the amendment, Mr. Hill made some very good points about the amendment, and Mrs. Beatty's argument is a rambling mess that doesn't address any of the issues he brought up. It's disgusting. The vote failed 201-208.


I just did.

Jesus God...



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: chrismarco

Great points.

I know that when I went to college the costs were far lower than when my daughter attended - even adjusting for inflation and a sh#ts & giggles tax of 10% or so.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tekner

originally posted by: Admitted2
Yeah democrats want America to suck for everyone.

Except, democrats are Americans.

Go ahead and hate the party and vote otherwise but don't be an idiot.


-Admitted2

HAHAHAHAHAHA Wow welcome back, took 1 day


What happened to the other guy? You know, "I want witnesses I want witness"?



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: Tekner

originally posted by: Admitted2
Yeah democrats want America to suck for everyone.

Except, democrats are Americans.

Go ahead and hate the party and vote otherwise but don't be an idiot.


-Admitted2

HAHAHAHAHAHA Wow welcome back, took 1 day


What happened to the other guy? You know, "I want witnesses I want witness"?


He started a thread asking the mods to delete his account, they deleted him. They will never delete the material though.

Lots of "recycled" members here.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

Here is a link to the bill that democrats voted against.

MOTION TO RECOMMIT H.R. 3621


edit on 31-1-2020 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Jan, 31 2020 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: mobiusmale

originally posted by: vor78
Disgusting, but hardly surprising. The Democrats are well on their way to going full-on communist. They're about a half-step away from suggesting that we criminalize dissenting political views at this stage.


Well, in the House Impeachment Inquiry...they did not allow the President to have legal representation present to cross-examine witnesses. They did not allow the minority (Republicans) to freely call their own witnesses, or to have a minority hearing day.
...


I have said that if the socialists, no longer democrats, can do this to a POTUS what can't they do to the regular Joes and Janes in the U.S. whom "dare" not have the same political or religious views as the "socialist masters/leaders"?

What's worse is that so many AmeriKans don't seem to think that it is wrong for their socialist leaders to criminalize a POTUS simply because he/she is not a socialist/globalist...

BTW, there are already attempts by Liberals/progressives/socialists using similar social score systems as the one China uses. Take as an example Twitter's Bot Sentinel, which labels AmeriCans whom dare have conservative views and are pro-Trump as "Trollbots", and attempts to ban and has banned, through Twitter, whom knows how many Twitter users simply because of their political views.

We have seen already the concerted effort by liberals/socialists/democrats whom demonetized independent/conservative websites simply because of their political views.

It didn't help that their role model Obama and his administration of socialists and even communists used government agencies to go after conservative groups.

Was there a concerted effort from "moderate democrats" to try to stop this radicalization of the democratic party, and the obvious targeting against groups, and Americans whom lean right in politics?

I don't recall any "democrat moderates" calling out these attempts at criminalizing Americans, which again started under Obama's administrations, simply based on our political views.



edit on 31-1-2020 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Feb, 1 2020 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Tekner

Did you check the vote? 208 to 201. Between the Republicans that voted 'nay' and the ones that didn't bother to vote this amendment would have been easily recommitted.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join