Posted on 10/11/2008 9:48:19 AM PDT by roughman
I think this would be a great and popular proposal. Most credit card companies get away with loan sharking customers, which is prosecuted if organized crime does it. Credit card hell affects many people. Credit card companies can, almost arbitrarily, raise rates for just about any reason, even if you pay on time. This affects almost every family budget. I think McCain could make great points by proposing a mandated cap on credit card rates. What do you think?? Top rate of 10% ?
“Again, unsecured debt carries a high risk, especially at a time when credit is scarce”
Unsecured implies you can not pay it back. Very difficult these days even if you declare bankruptcy.
Unsecured debt is expensive for a reason. My advice: Keep your credit card balances 30% or less. I speak from experience.
I’ll give a da!# about the banks losing money when they start acting responsibly.
So far we’ve given them $700 Billion and thats just for starters.
The bottom line is that the game is so rigged against the customer that if one credit card company screws you then all of them will through universal default.
$700BN down the drain. Bluto got more out of his college years.
Try the address given on the back of your current bill 6 months from now. See how long it takes to effectuate payment.
(BTW, to avoid a late fee make sure to pay at the regular time).They know when they do that the payment is going to be late.
That's fraud my friend. They are not nice people ~ not even as nice as Obama.
The fact USPS allows them to dispense with the date of mailing is complicity in fraud. It's time to send some of their executives to prison (as we clean out the credit industry}.
"What do I think? Well, let's take a peek at the path down which you propose to walk ....
The leftists would love your proposal, as it gives them another stepping off point in controlling the public.
First would come the law setting credit card rates at 10% (or even less if polling showed more votes could be had at a lower rate). Buried in the bill would be lots of additional things that laid the groundwork for future actions to gain more power over the public and it's purse.
Now, a new gov't agency would be needed to run this monitoring and control effort -- maybe it would be called "Fanniecard". This might be an appropriate name, since the ultimate goal is get to your wallet.
The new agency would need it's own (new, not existing) building (probably a whole complex of buildings), with full technology, and a grand plan to tie all the new agency into all the other existing agencies. Oh yea, and the new building, and associated landscaping, interior design, etc. will have to be done under the small, disadvantaged, minority, etc. contracting scenario. Think massive budget growth over time, kind of a "Big Dig" cost overrun scenario.
Then, the new agency has to have people, lots of people. Top gov't people only go up the ladder when they continue to grow and accumulate more and more people. Oh yes, and all this hiring will have to be under the affirmative action and Americans with disabilities act umbrellas.
Now, of course, everybody knows that gov't agencies never die, and instead, seek new ways to grow and expand. So, backed by the leftist government power-seekers, this new agency will want to become a Cabinet Level department, and then gain monitoring and control over other things. Also, it would be given a new name, something soothing sounding, maybe the "Department of Family Protection".
The government would pass one big "consolidating" bill, giving the new Department of Family Protection the authority to direct the private sector to reduce interest rates on all purchases, to, you know, protect the family.>p? And there you have it, the public is protected from "predatory practices" by the public sector!
Now, of course, once it's all cozy, and being handled by the all-seeing, all-knowing gov't, there will be a couple of small things that the public will have to deal with.
The leftists will decide that everyone is spending too much, and consequently, paying too much interest, regardless of what the interest level is. So.....
Credit card rates will become "progressive", (but of course, like now, only the "rich" will be targeted).
Many, many people, including illegals, will not be able to have credit cards, so the Gov't will issue them one, and all wage earners will have to pay more taxes to cover the needs of these "needy" people, since it's not their fault.
And, if the wage earners can't pay their new tax burden, the Dept of Family Protection will have the power to seize all assets (it will make the IRS look friendly), and if necessary, indenture the slackers who won't/can't pay their last dime to the gov't (remember all those additional things that laid the groundwork for future actions to gain more power over the public and it's purse, buried in the original bill?).
Of course, the leftists, who spend every second of their entire lives thinking up ways to use the gov't to gain power and control the lives of others, would be much more ingenious than I have been in identifying ways to remove every freedom from us, but maybe this will give you some ideas about just a little of what they would do with your proposal.
What do I think?
I think that you (and anyone else who thinks the gov't should be "solving our problems") need to go to the nearest mirror, look intently at the person you see there, and say "What in the hell!! was I thinking!."
to which I respond:
Roughman, I not only agree with him, I think his post is brilliant
Fanniecard indeed!!!
Ronald Reagon said it perfectly: "Government is the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem!"
oops. Reagan said:
Government is NOT the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem.
I agree with this suggestion. There is nothing unconstitutional about usury laws.
Thats right, if banks couldn’t charge outrageous rates then they wouldn’t make bad loans.
I’m sure their executives would find another equally honest line of work, like selling used cars or ACLU attorney.
Main Entry:
Etymology:
Middle English usurie, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin usuria, alteration of Latin usura, from usus, past participle of uti to use
Date:
14th century
1archaic : interest2: the lending of money with an interest charge for its use ; especially : the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates3: an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest ; specifically : interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money
NUFF SAID
Investorwords.com: Usury Definition: Charging an illegally high interest rate on a loan.
See also: Usury statutes in the United States
Agreed, actually. You see, most states have usury laws which set maximum interest rates that may be charged. The Congress exempted all federally chartered banks from state usury laws. Right now it is not state and local banks that are in trouble. It is the big nationally chartered banks that are in trouble, so I am all in favor or returning regulation of this mess to the states.
Good pick up. I used websters online.
Of course one of the problems is that with all the on-line dictionaries, I can pick and choose definitions to suit my purpose. It’s convenient. Usually they overlap, but sometimes one can save an argument by picking an outlier. Fair: but this is either war or it is love, not sure which.
Keep the ever-expanding government out.
This is nuts. From a conservative website yet. How are interest rates and prices determined? By free people interacting. Those with good credit are given better rates. Who are you to decide what the rate should be. Get a clue. You cannot charge a rate that is too high. People will go else where. Whether it’s gasoline, ground chuck, labor, houses, interest rates, whatever. The problem with this country is that most people are totally ignorant as to economics. And have no appreciation for freedom.
It is government interference in teh economy that has gotten us into this mess. Government interference in the free interactions of people(the market) are always an attempt to cheat reality. Insane and childish. It’s a game of let’s pretend. Let’s pretend that everyone has earned and can afford a house. Let’s pretend that everyone is equally credit worhty. Let’s take money from some people and give it to others so we all can pretend that they are prosperous.
You can fool reality only for so long. Then it all comes crashing down. The bailout is one more attempt to pretend. CRASH!
I'm commenting on your idea NOT on your bio. In the 50's every other communist front organization had the words "freedom" or "American" in it - no one here checks people's credentials. For good or ill.
And I can assure you - having been a liberal myself years ago - the average liberal troll would go out of his way to have a name that reeks of patriotism - and a bio that would make most of us want to kiss his ring. Not saying that's you.
On that score I'm NOT saying you're a troll, but I am saying you're putting forth a classic liberal take on an economic issue. If you were to say we should all work according to our ability and take according to our need, I wouldn't look at your bio before calling that a liberal position. In fact, that's almost a direct quote from Marx.
Calling me an intolerant jerk falls into the catagory of name calling. So when you ask if we can differ and discuss without insults I think it's possible. But let's stay on the level of ideas and not pull rank (or bio) so to speak... And sorry about the troll comment - I was speaking in general about freepers who put forth liberal ideas and act like their conservative.
If we were to tell them they couldn't charge more than 3% then they wouldn't be able to stay in business. If we said 5% - a company could stay in business if they only gave cards to people with high FICO scores.
Also, the more regulation, the more dem congressmen have their hands out and favors being handed to their favorites ( for a donation)... If forced low rates were the norm, we would hear about how "the poor" should have access to credit cards and banks would ask for "insurance against failure" to give them cards. Kind of like the mess we're in now with housing loans. We'd have "subprime" credit cards backed by Frannie and Freddie. And the whole mess we have now with an economic system collapsing with the best of intentions/
Anyhow, it's worth talking about... let me know what you think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.