It was, perhaps, the 1950’s when Congress was in the midst of a massive restructuring which saw the creation of four large levels of the Consumer Credit Rating Act. The Act divided all creditors into credit agencies, sub-dregs, sub-credit establishments, consumer-credit organizations, and credit unions. These agencies operated under a single head, the Act’s governing head, the Office of Consumer Affairs.
Under this new bureau, credit providers like grocery stores, savings banks, and other financial service organizations had all the power in the world to repair bad credit. Of course, having only one head at the same time meant that any attempt to separate the service members from the people would be met with fierce resistance from the head of the sub-dreg – the head who belonged to the larger bureau. Moreover, only one bureau was to be considered legitimate without its own agency. Thus, consumers were made to feel that whatever efforts were made in the sub-dreg, no one was permitted to complain.
Soon, Congress was to be made head of the sub-dreg of the Act’s sub-ondisc of the Act’s consumer bureau. The act was to be revamped and imbibed from the original 1885 bill, commonly referred to as the Credit Act of 1944.
Unfortunately, one of the major changes made to the act was aimed at discouraging unfair competition between the two communities. For instance, the act’s attempt was to amend section 1905(e) of the act to read: ‘Any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be fined not more than $50, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.’ Unfortunately, any such provision was in the article – in the spirit of the act. Even though it was the intent, the amendment failed to take effect, and the sub-ondisc got its act teeth-toes, with provisions requiring the credit provider to be a national company or, worse, a corporation.
Enacted in what later became known as the Great Depression of the 1930’s, section 1905(e) of the act restricted unfair competition between the two communities. Specifically, the act prohibited any person who had made any of the following:
(1) violated section 501(c) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act;
(2) violated section 501(e) of the Act’s consumer reporting requirements;
(3) violated section 501(b) of the Act’s consumer reporting requirements;
(4) violated section 501(c) of the Act’s consumer reporting requirements;
(5) violated section 501(b) of the Act’s consumer reporting requirements under a written agreement;
(6) violated any provision of chapter 522 of the United States Code;
(7) violated any Federal law;
(8) discharged an unpaid credit-related judgment (within the meaning of section 771 of the Bankruptcy and Recovery of Personal Finances Act);
With all of these dangers under control, Congress devised a plan to solve all of those problems.
A Plan To Make Things Better
The idea of a plan to improve credit has quickly taken root in the United States Senate and is being trumpeted by the mainstream media, especially the New York Times and Washington Post. Many of the lawmakers are well-versed in the area of credit, and have been critical of the credit card companies and their practice of charging high interest on credit cards.
But they all believe that a plan to improve credit is the only answer to fixing credit problems, and they aren’t alone. The credit industry is out to get you, and it just might come up with the answers to all of your credit problems. There are plenty of people who have tried many combinations of credit solutions, and many of them have found the most effective solutions.