Dec 162010
 

Purse Party Profits
Earn up to .50 with the Purse Party Profits eBook! *** No Fluff – 180 Pages *** Purse Party Profits explains how to start your own purse party business. Includes 3 bonus eBooks and time saving forms to help keep your purse party business organized.
Purse Party Profits

The Lunch Box Diet – Woman’s World say ‘Gold Star Results’
Elle Magazine 5/5, Woman’s World ‘Gold Star Results, The Easiest Diet’. Also featured in Zest, Marie Claire, Wall Street Journal. More credibility than any other online diet available. www.thelunchboxdiet.com/affiliates
The Lunch Box Diet – Woman’s World say ‘Gold Star Results’

 

 

I was not a big fan of the bank bailouts but understood we had to prop up faith in our antiquated dollar.

This transaction looks like it worked out pretty good. What will the greedy Old Party complain about next?

 

 

On the latest strings I noted that the Republicans were to blame for  the loss of unemployment extensions.  This was followed by Pelosi declaring that these benefits were the root of new jobs.  It is not possible, at the moment for, the Republicans (alone) to block anything as they do not have near enough votes to do so.  Secondly this was not just a unemployment extension.  Pelosi and Reid added some $38B to it,  money for local and state government so they could avoid cutting their budget as well as much more.  Stripped down to just an extension the bill likely would have passed with a caveat..where was the money to come from?  The Republicans and some moderate Democrats did not wish to add it to the national debt…they wanted to take it from monies still in last years stimulus package.  Not only did the Democrats refuse to do so they also chose to add all these other “benefits” to the national debt. 

 

And of course the Republicans are “in bed” with Wall Street.  But what was the party that proposed then got passed the stimulus package?  And where was that money going other than to the auto makers…Wall Street perhaps?  And how many of Obama’s advisors came from Wall Street…start with Geitner.

 

I would just like to remind all of those who are considering disputes of accuracy of information in their credit reports of the major change in the dispute process that legally take effect on 7/1/2010.

Up until now, the arcane rules of FCRA 611(a) required we consumers, even though our dispute was with the one who posted information to our credit files, to first file our disputes with the CRAs, who would then use their stupid E-Oscar process, and forward what they chose to consider as “relevant information” (FCRA 611(a)(2)) to the creditor, then for the creditor to report back to the CRA, and then for the CRA, who was never even a party to the disputed issues, to render their decision.  Kinda stupid and cumbersome, to say the least.

Congress recognized, more than a decade ago, the stupidity of this procedure.

They set forth what is called a “direct dispute” procedure that enables the consumer to dispute directly with the party that posted to their credit report.  That was enacted as FCRA 623(a)(8).

But it had a major hitch, as a legislative concession to the creditor lobby.

It required, before the direct dispute rights was made law, that all interested parties be given the opportunity to first express their concerns, support, or objections.

It would only become law upon publication of final rules published by the major federal banking authorities.

So, proposed rules were published at

70944 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 239 / Thursday, December 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules.  Comments and opinions received……..

 

It then took over a year and a half for final rules to be published.

They were finally published in the Federal Register as:

31484 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 125 / Wednesday, July 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

 

This fully enacts the provisions of FCRA 623 (a)(8), as of the state effective date of 7/1/2010.  It now gives we consumers the right to directly dispute with the provider of disputed information, be they an OC or debt collector, without having to go through the arcane intermediary of a CRA.

 

The Market does not like One Party Control of the Government. Under Clinton, a Republican Majority in the House lead to a good economy. The .com bubble burst brought it down. There is a good chance history will repeat itself.

Related Blogs

  • Related Blogs on A Republican Take Over Good for the Economy
 

The Market does not like One Party Control of the Government. Under Clinton, a Republican Majority in the House lead to a good economy. The .com bubble burst brought it down.

Related Blogs

  • Related Blogs on A Republican Take Over of the House and or Senate Good for the Economy
 

In what I have always thought to be one of the stupidest and most restrictive provisions of the FCRA, the only dispute process previously availbible to consumers was to file any and all disputes against any creitorl by way of dispute party dispute with the third-party consumer reporiting agency to which they were rubber stamp. Disputes should be directly with the creditor.

 

Consumers could not previously dispute direcltly with the creditor.  They  had to, stupidly, first got trough CRA pre-processing, and the ruthless dossimiation of their brainless and automated E-Oscar process; referral of their much-sanitized reaasn s to a  credior, thrugh a limioted E-Oscar code number, and and referral oof whateer trought anoother code.

Congress recognized the stupidity of this dispute proocess a decade, and yet enacted FCRA 623(a)(8), permitting direct dispiute between the contesting parties to be delayed for more than a decase,  That delsy is now GONE!

 

It was just on hold pending final rules plublished in the Feferal Register.  Those final rules will become effeciive July 1,2010.

 

Consumers, as of 7/1/2010, can now dispute, under the statutory provisions of FCRA 623(a)(8), any reporiting of information to a CRA directly iwith the party who provided the information, without having to use the CRA as an intermediatary.

 

I have been involved in a car accident, I did wrong, and curiosity, which seems to give the car was heavy, when controls insurance company to reduce their real value based on “private party value to turn it off,” or ” retail price? This is a 98 ‘Honda Civic car before, and IM just want to know how much I have to wait. . .

 

Local Love Stories
Local Love Stories for Valentine’s Day Valentine letter – Rhonda Morris It was the early ‘60s in Cortez, Colorado. The young rig hand sat in the diner with the crew, looking at the pretty waitress across the room. The bet was $20 that he couldn’t get a date with her. It was harder to win that $20 than he thought. After several weeks of coming in to eat and working his charm on her, finally she …

Read more on Olney Daily Mail

Canadian households sink further into debt
Although the recession may technically be over in Canada, many households sank even further into debt in 2009, creating the highest debt-to-income ratio ever seen in Canada, according to The Vanier Institute of the Family’s annual assessment on the Current State of Canadian Family Finances released Tuesday.

Read more on Dose

Attempts to rein in CREA could backfire
The Competition Bureau’s attempt to break up what it calls “anti-competitive” practices of the Canadian Real Estate Association could heat up the housing market even more because it will lead to lower…

Read more on MalaysiaNews.net

A self-destructing party
When Sen. Jamby Madrigal filed her certificate of candidacy for the presidency, her fellow senators were surprised because she had no party. She was asked why, and she said. “I’m not running to win. My goal is to see to it that Manny Villar will not become president.”

Read more on Manila Standard Today