The credit card bill of rights does not cap interest rates

[inthebrain]

That's real fucking great.

If it doesn't cap interest rates and they can raise their rates whenever they want then what's the point.

I suppose the bill just requires them to leave a mint on your pillow after they get done fucking you in the ass.

Washington is run by fucking asshats. It totally astounds me how everyone there is total shill for fucking Wall Street.

[madfloridian]

1. Hey now, don't forget.

The bill does allow people to carry their guns and weapons into national parks.

:shrug:

It doesn't cap the interest rates on credit cards, but look at the bright side. :eyes:

Kidding.

[flpoljunkie]

30. Sanders amendment to limit rates to 15% failed miserably with many Dems voting against it.

The vote was 33-60. Roll call vote:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00191

[quantass]

98. For me the rate can be 50%

because i always pay my balance off each month on time..Never paid a dime in interest for more than 5 years. Banks are businesses and their goal is to rake in as much money as possible and being as corporate america has a leash on congress dealing with an issue of enormous potential profits it is no surprise the rates were not restricted....for the general public i say just start being responsible and paying back your balance on time ... the ultimate FU to banks since they literally made nothing off you.

[Baby Snooks]

130. Wait until they hit you with a fee...

I really do get fed up with DEMOCRATS taking this "holier than thou" attitude towards others. Most people would pay their balance off each month if they could. Most cannot. How nice that you can. I sincerely hope at some point you cannot and remember the attitude you took towards others who could not but who depended just the same on having a credit card for an emergency like food for the baby or medicine for the baby - you know the things "responsible" Democrats like yourself don't consider. And yes, I know, they shouldn't buy luxuries and Lotto tickets. I will save you the trouble of pointing that out. And point out that in reality most don't. Most do well just to pay the rent, keep the lights on and keep food on the table. And most hope they don't have an emergency. At the very least I hope your bank hits you up with an enormous annual fee. For being "responsible" which of course they will.

[MercutioATC]

2. It prevents CC companies from raising rates on existing balances.

If you don't want to pay an increased rate, don't make new charges.

It's that simple.

[inthebrain]

4. That's nive cause they've probably raised the rates already

past the point where people have no choice but to default on most of em.

That's really funny. So it doesn't address the fact that Capital One raised the rate to 30% with no warning. In many cases up 40% and 50%.

Thanks for nothing.

[MercutioATC]

5. It's a fix...and it's a good one.

A cap...at, say, 30%...would have been nice too, but it's not necessary with the other things the law fixes.

[Raineyb]

10. A cap at 15% is much more appropriate

and the other fixes isn't going to stop the abuses going on now. This "reform" is a fig leaf. And not a very effective one at that.

[MercutioATC]

17. 15% for an unsecured loan to somebody with questionable credit?

All that would do is ensure that low-income people never got credit cards.

The reform is substantive. I'd rather have seen it take less than 9 months to implement, but it's a huge fix once it takes effect.

[Raineyb]

59. It's not hurting the credit unions so yeah I think it's more than reasonable.

If an individual charged the kind of rates the credit cards charged they'd be looking at a loansharking charge but you think it's perfectly acceptable to allow a corporation to charge these types of rates? Do you work for the Credit card companies or something? Because otherwise I'd suggest you request payment for all the shilling you're doing.

Credit card companies don't give a bloody damn about whether or not low income people can buy anything. Their current business model is dependent on people not being able to pay them off. The credit card companies and you seem to be under the impression that they can make their profits at any societal cost. They have no such entitlement and the government ought to make sure of that.

[onetwo]

69. An individual wouldn't be crazy enough to engage in the credit card business.

Would YOU give someone free reign to even a portion of your checking account for ANY amount of interest? I bet that if you said, "Yes," that interest rate would have to be pretty high.

There's absolutely nothing different between that scenario and the banks' situation. Cap rates at 15% and no bank will let you anywhere near their portfolio of accounts. Get used to being constantly denied credit.

[inthebrain]

84. Credit card companies have been making money hand over fist for a very long time

You have to be kidding about this.

We've gone over that ad nauseum on this board. Are you really trying to say these guys are stuggeling to turn a profit?

[onetwo]

118. That's because they have data and sophisticated analysis on their side.

That same information that tells the bank that they can keep you on only if you're willing to pay 19.99% APR will tell them to cut you off if the maximum allowable rate is only 15%. Heck, the only reason that EVERY American doesn't have a credit card is that the prime banks appear to have set their own internal caps right around 30% or so for the initial rate. People still get declined today because the prime banks don't appear to be willing to start anyone off at 50+%.

There's nothing wrong with some issuers being hugely profitable. As we have seen with AIG/Merrill/etc, a financial services company can be making billions in good times and losing billions in bad times. There are plenty of issuers that have gone bust due to poorly managed portfolios. For luxuries, it is the job of the marketplace to penalize a company if their prices are out of whack. Clearly, the big earners are big earners because the data is helping them to nail their prices and extract the maximum they can get away with. Depending on the customer, the rate could be 4% or 40%.

Some big earners made lots off of fees that result from draconian usage policies. The bill that passed goes a LONG way towards ending that part of the business -- this is what matters.

[Raineyb]

114. Free reign? Loan sharkers don't give free reign and neither do the credit card companies.

No one tells the credit card companies that they have to give people unlimited access to funds and in fact they don't. I hear a lot of talk about the poor put upon banks but no one seems to have boo to say about how irresponsibly the banks are behaving when they deliberately offer lines of credit to people they know damn well shouldn't have it then wait until they get overdrawn then hit them for more fees as though the extra money were going to appear from where I don't know. Oh that's right because when the banks do it it's called a business plan.

And considering the number of people who are incarcerated for loan sharking I'd say that apparently it's usury only exists for those who don't call themselves thief, Inc.

[onetwo]

119. Whose fault is it that a customer gets overdrawn?

No issuer that I know of FORCES you to make a single charge or carry even a one cent balance over to the next statement. As long as they don't do this, the responsibility falls upon the shoulders of the consumer. How can you argue against this?

[Raineyb]

124. No one forced the credit card company to issue the card

So I'm not at all inclined to absolve the company of any responsibility which you apparently have a problem with.

[onetwo]

126. Hey, the credit card companies aren't complaining...

...you are.

If people don't want to line the banks' pockets, then they have to learn how to avoid doing so. Pay in full every month before the statement closes. That is IT. One simple rule. You avoid 100% of finance charges and penalty fees that way. You can even make money via rewards and arbitrage.

Personal responsibility.

[Raineyb]

133. The credit card companies don't have to. They've PAID for the privilege of getting the politicians

to pass bill that favor them.

Do you work for them or something? I don't get paid to argue their side. Therefore I refrain from doing it.

[onetwo]

139. I don't get paid by any side

so I retain the luxury of simply going by my own beliefs and principles. And the fact of the matter is that, because it is so straightforward to avoid paying the issuers for anything, I cannot conjure up much sympathy for those who willingly put themselves at the mercy of the banks.

If you decide to sell your financial soul for a bunch of goods and services that you normally could not afford, the ramifications of that decision sit solely upon your shoulders.

This bill doesn't favor the banks in any way whatsoever. It does not increase the profitability of their business one iota; in fact, it will almost certainly decrease profits. This is by far the biggest win consumers have ever scored against the credit card issuers. If you can still get in financial trouble after these new rules, you're hopeless.

[onetwo]

68. 15% cap means that if you don't qualify now, you get DECLINED instead of an offer at a higher rate.

A 15% APR cap wouldn't do anything except get a lot of people instantly cut off and even more declined for future credit.

It's like telling the auto insurance companies to cap their premiums at say, $500 a year, and expecting them to write coverage for the 19-year-old in Brooklyn w/ 3 speeding tickets who would normally pay $2500 every 6 months. They will laugh in your face and happily refuse your "business."

Completely unsecured revolving credit is a luxury. It is expensive. Giving random people cards that allow them instant access to thousands of cards without any collateral whatsoever is RISKY BUSINESS. A 15% cap will take us back to the days of far stricter underwriting and far less approvals. And, if you're complaining about high rates, you are EXACTLY the person that would have been cut off under such a law.

[DJ13]

26. If you don't want to pay an increased rate, don't make new charges.

You already have to right to refuse interest rate increases so long as you agree to cease further purchases.

Thats nothing that we dont already have.

[inthebrain]

44. They can still jack up your existing puchases n/t

[Occam Bandage]

3. "if...they can raise their rates whenever they want"

They cannot.

[ChiciB1]

7. OH?? Then Why Did Mine Get Raised From 6.49% to 19.24% Recently??

WaMu was bought by Chase and they REALLY put the screws to GOOD customers and they don't care what they do to you. I closed my account and will pay off the balance, but after calling them, calling a supervisor, writing the Federal Reserve, my Senators and Representative and the OCC... nothing changed!!

I read the fine print on the back and it said "if" there's a "V" by your interest rate THEY have the right to raise the rate at any time. You can accept it or pay the account off!! I'm doing the latter! I called them so many times and each time came away with fire coming out of the top of my head! My stress level has gone through the roof, and I had a routine visit with my Dr. yesterday and was prescribed lisinopril along with my atenolol! He did an EKG in office, ordered an Echo-cardiogram and a Chemical Stress test! I only went to see him for my regular refill!! Plus he wants numerous blood tests done!

Now all of this isn't because of CC companies, but given what is going on these days I think I've worked myself up into a frenzy! I really DO need to stop coming to DU, I've already stopped listening to the News because I can't believe what is happening now. I so wanted Democrats to get in a fight for "we the people" but from where I sit, I don't see it happening! There are some, but I don't expect much because of the Blue Dogs and DINOs. And dare I say it, Obama HAS disappointed me on some very important issues.

But then, I'm a Liberal and I KNOW I don't count much anymore!

[Occam Bandage]

8. I did not say they could not ever raise their rates. nt

[ChiciB1]

13. Forgot To Say... I've NEVER Had A Late Fee, Always Paid Much More Than

minimum, but didn't always pay the balance off. I'm have GOOD credit! I will add that Chase only raised the rate to 19.24 THE DAY BEFORE the Bill in Congress!

And a cap of 30% seems too high to me! I think 15% is fair because there are too many people who can't make the minimum payment as it is! Yes, they should have been much more careful, and perhaps not bought things they didn't need. I KNOW many who have done that, still when you're back is against the wall, you have no room to maneuver! I suppose many will just STOP paying and you know who will pick up the slack!

It ain't gonna be THE BIG GUYS that's for sure!!!

[Occam Bandage]

22. If the problem is irresponsible purchases made during better economic times,

then they are covered under this bill. If they are trying to get out from under their credit cards, this bill will help them, as it prevents the companies from raising the rates on their existing balances.

[inthebrain]

34. It doesn't prevent them from raising your rate

except for new accounts for the first twelve months.

They can notify of you rate changes in a set period of time. Closing the card out does not stop the rate from going into effect on the existing balance should you not be able to pay it off in a set period of time. You still have to pay it off at that rate when it kicks in.

The bill is disengenous at best.

And how the hell do they throw in allowing guns in national parks?

The real problem here is predatory lending and the raising of interest rates.

[Occam Bandage]

37. That's incorrect.

Credit card issuers cannot raise interest rates on existing balances unless:

* The increase is under a variable interest rate.
* It is the end of a promised time period for a promotional rate.
* The required minimum payment is not received within 60 days after the due date.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30846334/

Unless it's the expiration of a promotional rate, you have a variable rate card, or you aren't making your payments, they cannot raise rates on existing balances. They can only raise the rates on future purchases, with a 45-day warning. That is a major win for consumers.

[inthebrain]

43. Your telling me I'm wrong while also providing evidence that I am right

Every card you apply for has a "promotional rate". They do not inform you or give you a ballpark figure what that rate will be after the introductory period. They are still allowed to play the same game they've always played.

If you pay on time with the promotional rate, they can still jack the rate to whatever they want. It's the same problem we've been having. Capital One just jacked everyone's rates to 30%. This bill does not address that at all.

It's fluff.

It's like saying;

You can not die UNLESS;

* You are old

* You have a terminal illness

* You have taken your first breath

* Your cells use sugar for energy

If you do not meet the above criteria you are exempt from dying.

[Occam Bandage]

46. Uh, right. We're not talking about promotional rates expiring at a fixed time.

If you apply for a card with a six-month or one-year introductory rate, you should not be shocked when the rate increases after six months or one year respectively. That isn't what this discussion is about; this discussion is about rate changes that occur arbitrarily.

The Capital One rate increase is evidence that this is a strong bill; they're trying to do all the evil shit they can before the bill comes into effect.

[onetwo]

71. You are always told the regular rate that will take over once the promo ends.

That regular rate cannot change for existing balances. It can only change for future charges after a 45-day notification period.

This bill is a BIG win for consumers.

[mrs_p]

19. hope you take care of yourself!

i know it is a stressful time, but maybe it would be better to take some long walks in the woods?

[ChiciB1]

24. I Do Feel A "Change" Of Habits Is Needed! I Really Dislike Taking

any kind of meds!! I was very surprised though! Thanks for the kind words, but I wasn't looking for sympathy, just trying to make a point.

But you're words are very kind and thoughtful!
:hug:

[MercutioATC]

25. ...and some of us (at least me) feel that "liberals" like you give the rest of us a bad name.

"DINOs"?

I believe in fair rules that can't be changed in the middle of the game, and this law does that. If a card currently has a variable rate, yes, the rate can be raised at any time. That was disclosed when you accepted the card. This law goes even further than "fair" by giving the consumer a gift that's above and beyond the terms of the contract they signed.

...and some people complain???

[ChiciB1]

27. Don't Worry... I'm Fixing MY Problem! I Won't Be Using A Card, But

I one of the lucky ones who can! But rate hikes from 6.49 to 19.25 in 3 months is a tad over the line from where I'm sitting! I will say that the 19.24 was not going into affect until July 1, so I DID read my "fine" print! I got wise in time!

But why does closing an account go against your credit rating?

[inthebrain]

28. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps son!!!!

Ya know that old Republican adage that everyone found so ditasteful not so long ago. Amazing what throwing the Republicans out of office can accomplish.

Isn't it amazing how when a party is in power everyone attacks the issues from the right?

[MercutioATC]

33. Credit isn't a right, it's a privilege.

...and lenders can use whatever criteria they wish to screen applicants, just as they can charge any rate that's consistent with the law and the contract.


...and there's nothing wrong with that.

[inthebrain]

38. The law is not holy writ

Anytime you argue from a position of "it's the law" your pretty much claiming that you haven't much to stand on.

A lot of those laws that allow Credit Card companies to do whatever they want were written by legislation sponsored by guess who? THE CREDIT CARD COMPANIES!!!!!!!

This is common sense.

And the credit card companies PURPOSFULLY word their contracts in such a way that it makes it nearly impossible for the average consumer to understand just how far they can go. Their advertising is also purposfully misleading. Want an example, go to Borders Books and look at the latest Visa Ad they have up. As an old Graphic Design major I can tell exactly what they meant to do by setting that ad up.

You're arguing this from the right and it's plain as day to see. The average consumers when applying for these cards are not aware of the fact that these credit card companies can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want to bilk you. Even if you've never a late payment they can still jack up your rates.

[MercutioATC]

40. Then the "average consumer" is a moron and has no business signing ANYTHING.

If one signs an agreement without understanding it, they have only themselves to blame.

That's not a "right" position, it's a responsible position.

[inthebrain]

42. Nope, that a right wing position MASKED as responsibility

and typical of blaming the victims for their conditions. That is LAZY and IRRESPONSIBLE.

You defense of the credit card industries abusive practices make loan sharking seem respectable in comparison. A loan shark is out to fuck you over and they don't try to hide that in fine print or buy out legislators to do so. They are very up front about breaking your legs and jacking up what you have to pay back.

At least they are honest, open and up front about it.

[MercutioATC]

50. Being irresponsible does not make one a "victim".

If you have a credit card, it's because you contractually agreed to be bound by the terms of the offer. If you weren't responsible enough to actually read what you signed, you're not a "victim", you're an idiot.

That said, I am glad that this law gives some relief to credit consumers...even though the CC companies were well within their rights. But I think it's outrageous to get a break and then whine that it wasn't a big enough break.

[inthebrain]

53. I paid all me Capital one bills ON TIME

and they jacked my rate to 34%.

I suppose that doesn't make me a victim. I irresponsible because Capital One happens to be a bunch of greedy assholes.

I see your right wing position and raise you two Limbaughs.

[MercutioATC]

54. Did you sign the agreement that allowed them to do that?

Since you AGREED to the terms, how are you a victim?

[inthebrain]

57. I did and I also read the agreement after I signed and when they raised the rate

There was nothing in the agreement stating that they could raise the rate.

Not to mention that the agreed upon rate in the contract could be raised at any time before it expired AFTER FOUR YEARS.

Maybe the problem here is that you are the one the is ignorant and irresponsible? You clearly are very quick to blame the victim without knowing all the facts. You are the one that is guilty here of the ignorance and irresponisibility that you condescendingly accuse the the general public.

You just stepped in it.

[BzaDem]

64. The poster was arguing that people who sign a legal contract should not complain when it is enforced

If in your situation, your CC provider violated the contract, that is a completely different situation (a situation with which the other poster was not arguing with you about).

The poster was arguing with your silly position that those who don't read contracts are somehow "victims." They were not saying that companies should be able to break contracts.

[MercutioATC]

67. Exactly

If the CC company violated the terms of its contract with you, that's a completely different story.

...however, those who either didn't read the contract or just gambled that their rates wouldn't go up are definitely not victims.

[creeksneakers2]

76. Then you have recourse, and need no new law.

[Telly Savalas]

79. If there's nothing in the agreement authorizing them to raise the rates

you should have a pretty easy time suing them.

[inthebrain]

85. There's really nothing in the agreement that prohibits them either

I have a lawyer in my family and talked this issue over. Credit card companies for years have made a practice of using vague language in these agreements to hide and fuzz the line between what they can and can not do.

Moreso, there are tons of loopholes in the law that allow them to get away with what ever they want. They literally write their own legislation. This latest bill does not stop them from raising rates on existing balances.

Also, these companies do not just dabble in cradit cards themselves. They also give out health care loans as well. They are free to jack the rates as much as they like whenever they like. Even if you get a one year deferred interest loan they are not required to tell you what your interest will be after the years is up.

Playing like the credit card companies are open with their contract agreements is pretty naive. Not to mention to dismiss the fact that they pretty much own congress and get to write their own legislation.

[MercutioATC]

90. This latest law DOES prevent them from raising rates on existing balances.

...unless the borrower is 60 days or more late.

[inthebrain]

93. Oh, there's more

There's a big UNLESS in there with lots of qualifiers.

[muffin1]

41. I am with Wamu/Chase, too.

I am up to 39% interest, and just got charged a $39.00 over limit fee for being $1.78 over...for the first time in about 2 years.
:(

[onetwo]

70. Because that was then. This is now.

As a result of this law, banks cannot change rates on existing balances unless you are over 60 days late. Period.

[inthebrain]

11. After twelve months of opening a new account they can

there's nothing stopping them from totally ass raping you.

If they raise your rate after that point and you choose to close to the account, the company can mark up your credit score. Credit scores are adversely effected by closed accounts just as they are by having to many open accounts.

The only benefit to the consumer is the 12 month grace period. That's it. After that it is a total free for all.

[Occam Bandage]

16. Not on existing balances. If they raise your rates, they have to give you

45 days' notice, so you have ample warning to cease use of that particular card. Don't buy anything else on that particular card, and your rates don't go up.

[stray cat]

6. they are not going to lend money for free with no collateral

the bill fixes alot of wrongdoing - but alas no free ride....

[brentspeak]

12. Wait. Rewind.

Where did the OP suggest that capping credit card interest rates = "lending money for free with no collateral" or that he was expecting a "free ride"?

??

[ChiciB1]

20. Yeah, I Didn't Read That Either... Interest Rates Are Expected... But

highway robbery is something else. My credit score is going to be affected because I had TWO accounts with WaMu that went to Chase. One hasn't had a balance for a very long time, but stayed open. Now, I HAVE to close BOTH of them... the guy told me "you can't pay it off and NOT close the account, you CAN'T have it both ways!"

I don't understand why closing an account would go against your credit score. What's the reasoning behind that, it's NEVER been explained to me.

[Skittles]

62. I asked someone in the industry about that

he said it's because the amount of your "available credit" goes down. :thumbsdown:

[madfloridian]

14. I can not believe I see people at DU defending high credit card rates.

I think we are getting a little too accepting of what our corporate-tied senate is about.

I have seen this several times here.

There is no excuse for our rates for a perfect credit history going up 12% or maybe more in advance of this bill.

It is inexcusable.

We should not be defending a bill that allows guns in national parks while not capping interest rates.

[MercutioATC]

21. If you don't like it, don't use the card.

Simple.

Otherwise, even people with perfect credit histories are losing their jobs and defaulting on loans...and a CC is an unsecured loan. An absolute cap of 30% might have been appropriate, but the other fixes in the bill make it unnecessary.

[madfloridian]

29. Simplistic response. This was a cave in to corporations again.

If we keep defending such moves, we will lose our majority.

[inthebrain]

31. And Moral High Ground...

Which is why we have a majority.

You win the moral high ground on any issue that wins you elections better than any so called "framing the debate".

[madfloridian]

36. Moral High Ground is when you do what is right.

Not what it takes to win.

[MercutioATC]

32. I think it's a realistic response.

...and much better than the simplistic "Screw the man!" seen here so often.

[inthebrain]

35. Oh but of course, cause the man is screwing everyone else.

You're attacking this issue from the right.

I hope you realize that. The CC companies have plenty of advocates in Washington looking out for them. Look no further than the Veep. The people getting the screws put to them by these crooks have nothing. Even if they did have something all it takes is a few lobbyists to fix that.

[MercutioATC]

39. If you'd let go of your buzzwords, you'd see that I'm not "attacking the issue" from ANY direction.

I'm making two statements.


1) This law addresses the biggest of the issues that people have with CC lenders.

1) The CC companies were already operating both within the law and within their contracts with borrowers. This law actually gives borrowers things to which they're not contractually entitled.


How is that "attacking the problem from the right"?

[madfloridian]

48. You are defending the corporation position. Good luck on that.

You are putting down other people who live in the real world to defend an indefensible position.

They are raising rates on responsible people. Our party chose to cave in to them.

It's not easy defending the indefensible.

[MercutioATC]

49. Sometimes **gasp*** the corporation is right.

Had they broken ANY law or contractual obligation, I'd be the first to take them to task...but they haven't.

[inthebrain]

58. No you wouldn't

Because as mentioned above, you don't know all the facts.

And in this case, they are very wrong.

The fact that in many instances on this thread you arguing "the law" (which is written and bought by the credit card companies) shows your ignorance of the facts. As a matter of fact, you very conveniently gloss over the fact that these credit card companies write their own laws. Something that the consumer has no power to do.

[BzaDem]

66. The law allows consumers NOT to sign contracts with credit card companies.

That is true regardless of who you think wrote the law.

[onetwo]

72. This bill STOPS the banks from raising rates on "responsible" people.

You have to be 60 days late to see an increase on EXISTING balances.

You get 45 days of advance warning before your rates are raised on FUTURE charges -- long enough for you to prepare to stop using the card.

This is a case where the party has come through BIG TIME.

[Occam Bandage]

47. Talk about simplistic. nt

[Baby Snooks]

80. Life without credit...

Some of us have no credit. Some of us have managed, barely, to survive without credit. And some of us will never WANT credit again apart from a home mortgage although some of us have learned to put a hefty down payment to limit the amount of profit the lender will make. If people ever sat down and figured out how much they have really paid for their house it would shock most of them. Most have no choice but to put down as little as possible. But most probably would down much more if they had a choice. No one should be taking out an ARM at this point. And yet quite a few are. And the scam begins yet again.

We are no longer a democracy. We are an oligarchy. And we are reminded of that over and over and over again by Congress.

[LittleBlue]

82. If Bush had done this, DU would have gone apeshit

Now, they defend credit card companies. It's the Twilight Zone here at DU, and it's quite tiresome. These are the responses I expect at Freepland.

[inthebrain]

86. I agree

Funny how the fake left shows it's face.

[MercutioATC]

88. I may not be as fringe left as you, but that doesn't make me "fake left".

There's nothing "fake" about combining sensible liberal views with a sense of personal responsibility.

What you call the "left" is the anti-corporate...anti-responsibility...babysitting fringe that gives sensible people with liberal views a bad name.

You can howl at the moon all you like...it doesn't change the fact that there's nothing wrong with holding people responsible for their decisions.

[LittleBlue]

89. I agree with personal responsibility, you're right.

It's definitely partially their fault for using credit but failing to fully understand it.

That said, I've worked for a bank in the past. Banks create these credit cards with the intent to ensnare people into debt, and with the knowledge that they don't understand that debt. The banks charge mafia-style interest rates, formerly illegal until Reagan. And to improve profits, they've tacked on fees on top of the rates. It crosses the line from simple interest to rapacious usury.

[inthebrain]

99. What you're advocating in this discussion IS THE RIGHT WING FRINGE

It is also quite Fascist in nature;

1) The corporation (in this case the credit card companies) are allowed to mislead their consumers all they like.

2) It is the consumers (better yet) the American public that are stupid.

3) It is the consumers (not the corporations) that irresponsible (But of course, the credit card companies get to write their own legislation absolving them of all responsibility for their predatory lending practices).

4) The credit card company themselves are not responsible for misleading advertisements and wording in their contract agreements (Which there are plenty of loopholes in the law put there by....THE CREDIT CARD COMPANIES absolving them of any responsibilities).

5) Overall, nothing that the credit card companies do or the lenders do that can be classified as victimizing anyone else.

6) (Here comes the real kicker) So called expert economist ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC AT LARGE TO USE THESE FUCKING MONSTERS. From them to the very people sitting in the senate all the way up to the president. We have an economy that's fucking built on borrowing and lending money. You buy a car, home or rent an apartment YOU NEED A POSITIVE CREDIT HISTORY. That means using a fucking credit card.

And you stance is to blame the public for this? How naive and elitest. Not too mention extremely RIGHT WING.


Your arguement is akin to letting the rapist off the hook because the victim wore a short skirt or walked down a dark alley. The alley may be dark and the skirt may be short but that makes it OK for the predator to pounce.

My argument thus far has not contained much of my "Fringe leftist" ideology. If that were the case I would advocate that we complete dissolve all these creeps and distribute their unearned profits back to those who are the real creators of wealth in this country, THE WORKERS. Furthermore, every single politician that has abused the public trust put to them by taking money from these creeps receiving a nice long jail sentence.

[MercutioATC]

111. What color is the sky on your planet? "Right wing fringe"? Hardly.

"Fascist"? That's laughable.

Ok, by the numbers:

1) Not "all they like". There ARE limits. They're detailed in the Consumer Credit Protection Act.

2) If they're signing contracts that they don't understand, yes...they are stupid.

3) A lender presents an offer. The borrower is free to accept or reject that offer. I'll argue that there's no such thing as "predatory" lending. So yes, if a borrower accepts an obligation that they can't fulfill, they're being irresponsible. On the other hand, a lending institution's primary responsibility is to provide the maximum possible profit for its shareholders so offering terms that benefit its bottom line is actually responsible corporate behavior.

4) Depends on your definition of "misleading". If a borrower approaches the proposal realizing what I outlined in #3 above, there's no chance of being "misled". If something is unclear, a borrower should always assume that the actual term benefits the lender, not the borrower. That's just common sense.

5) With the regulations already in place, that statement is true.

6) If you're listening to the talking heads, you're an idiot. I mean it...an idiot. You've unwittingly plumbed the actual cause of the majority of our problems. People have become lazy. They want everything prechewed, predigested, and spoon-fed to them. Whether it's a case of them getting their political news from radio shock-jocks or their view of current events from major media outlets and chain e-mails or their real estate advice from infomercials or their financial advice from the talking heads, they're lazy.

Show me one lazy person and I'll show you three motivated people in a position to legally and ethically work the situation to their advantage.

...and whether or not you remember it, people used to save money and buy things with cash...and it worked pretty well. Nobody "needs" credit...they want credit so they can buy things before they can afford to pay cash for them.

"Naive"? Definitely not. I don't enter into agreements that I don't understand...and I seem to understand how the world works a bit better than the people you're advocating for do. "Elitist"? Only if you believe that critical thought is the exclusive domain of the wealthy and/or privileged (for the record, I'm neither). "Right wing"? Since when is personal responsibility the exclusive territory of the right?

Actually, my argument advocates telling the woman who went to a bar, bought her own drinks, got a little tipsy, and had consensual sex with the guy who said "I love you, baby" that she can't bring rape charges against him. If that offends your sensibilities, I'd suggest that your views are out of whack, not my contention.



...and your "fringe leftist ideology", frankly, horrifies me...as it should anybody with a conscience.

[Skittles]

109. happens all the time

nothing is wrong if Saint Obama thinks it's cool

[onetwo]

120. That's BS. Name one credit card consumer protection bill that ANY President has signed.

Search, and prepare to be extremely underwhelmed.

This is by far the biggest win we (consumers) have EVER scored against major card issuers.

[Raineyb]

60. A cap on interest rates is not a free ride.

Why can't the banks survive on what the credit unions charge?

[onetwo]

73. Credit union cards are notoriously more difficult to get. Probably for that very reason.

But, there's your option if you don't like what the big national banks are doing.

[ChiciB1]

78. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT ID DID!! Went To My Credit Union!!!

I didn't do it before because my interest rate was LOWER than my Credit Union! Now, I'm with my Credit Union!!! So that says a lot... MY credit IS good!!! And before they passed whatever it is that they passed, my rate was going to be hiked to 19.24%, for GOOD CREDIT!

Sorry, HAD to chime in again, this has really made me mad! A small interest hike I can understand, but from 6.49 to 19.14 in a VERY SHORT time is highway robbery, even WITH the fine print!!!

[Raineyb]

115. You mean they evaluate if someone can afford to pay their debts before issuing credit

you mean what a responsible banking institution is supposed to do? Imagine that!

So what? Easy credit is part of the reason that we're in this mess. It was used as a replacement for higher wages as the buying power of working people declined. I don't give two shits about credit if my check will cover my bills and allow me to save money to buy things like a TV. But when every single penny coming in goes out and all you have is easy credit that's what people end up using to maintain their standard of living.

[onetwo]

74. Credit union cards are notoriously more difficult to get. Probably for that very reason.

But, there's your option if you don't like what the big national banks are doing.

[phleshdef]

9. The bill is a GREAT first step. They tried to work a rate cap in but the Senate shot it down...

Whatcha gonna do? At least now they have to give a 45 day advance notice. And they can't raise the rates within the first year on new cards unless the person getting the card signs off on it upon obtaining it.

Also the restrictions on late fees and how they can be applied is to be applauded.

No, there is no cap on interest rates, but thats pretty much the only thing missing.

[andym]

15. Perhaps you would like to help Senator Dodd impose such restrictions in a second bill...

Perhaps you would like to help Senator Dodd impose such restrictions in a second bill..

See
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8428280

[girl_interrupted]

52. andym just saw your post, some good ideas there, we should be calling

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8428280

Wish more people would read it.

I know I will call Dodd, along with my 2 senators. Thanks very much for the info!

[snowdays]

18. Wasn't that amendment voted down a few weeks ago? I do

not recall the details. But I think it was in the form of an amendment. but i could be thinking of another issue.

[mrs_p]

23. i think cc companies suck

but i thought that they give you notice, you say you don't want it, then you can't use your card anymore and get to pay off the balance at the rate it closed? if this is the case, i don't mind (for me). it makes me budget better and not rely on money i don't really have.

[girl_interrupted]

45. The rates charged by CC companies is Usury, plain & simple, no sense to defend it

Loan sharking to be quite blunt. One of the leading causes of CC debt is medical expenses. So if you are unisured and/or elderly, the debt you have incurred, now has one full year for CC companies to jack up your rates even higher, on your existing debt. Whoopee! And thats not all, if you don't have the cash and still need to use your card? Sky is the limit to the interest rate they can charge you then, just like they are doing right now! Isnt that just wonderful?

And mind you, interest rates have risen not for just customers who are poor risks, but for those with good credit ratings. Why? Because CC's believe in equal opportunity loan sharking!

See it's ok if the banks that issue these credit cards screw up and need a bailout. But if you have been paying your bills on time and have watched your interest rates soar...well, hey! you better be responsible! What's that you say? You have? Well too bad. See banks don't have to be responsible for their debt, they have your tax dollars to cover their asses via bailouts. So asking for a cap? You have some nerve!

We may not have a cap...but we can carry concealed weapons in national parks. So quit your bitching...who could ask for more?

[MercutioATC]

55. So don't use credit cards!

People CHOOSE to use credit cards and carry a balance. Nobody is holding a gun to their heads.

That said, credit card debt is unsecured debt. If you default, the lender has no collateral assets to offset their loss. That commands a higher rate.

[dionysus]

56. you know, not enough people realize that you don't have to use them....

[onetwo]

75. Exactly!

[creeksneakers2]

77. Loan sharks provide a service

Sometimes somebody needs money and the loan shark is the only one who can help them. In some situations I'd be willing to pay a fat interest rate rather than suffer the consequences of not having the money when I desperately need it.

With credit cards there are two ways out. One is to find another unsecured loan with a lower interest rate and use it to pay back the one with the higher rate. The other alternative is bankruptcy.

Its not the responsibility of credit card companies to take care of indivuals who don't have enough money.

[inthebrain]

87. Credit Cards dabble the same way that Loan Sharks do

They have "Health Care Loans" which they use to ass rape people cause they know insurance companies don't cover for everything.

[MercutioATC]

92. I must have missed the part where CC companies force people to sign these contracts.

You're essentially complaining that some companies offer loans at rates and with terms that you don't like.

So what?

If you don't like the terms, don't sign the contract.

[inthebrain]

94. Red Herring

Nobody is arguing that.

Wanna point out where that is mentioned?













I didn't think so.

[MercutioATC]

97. Read the post I replied to.

How do lenders "rape" somebody who voluntarily agrees to their terms?

If you have another explanation for your statement, I'd love to hear it.

[inthebrain]

101. You're really trying to expand the terms of an arguement you know nothing about

You saying that credit card companies (Capital One is famous for this) do not use those in ill health to their advantage?

I've worked in health care for a VEEEEERY LOOOOOOONG time and know first hand how this shit works. Folks that are DXed with cancer are a classic case. They need to chemo, raidation or surgery and don't have insurance this is where capital one swoops in to "save the day".

You wanna tell me that patients in need of health care with no insurance have many choices in this manner? Capital One knows they have people like this and in simialar siuations by the balls. They offer a loan, maybe for the first twelve months not require any payments or charge interest, and after the grace period is up royally fuck these people with interest rates. People that have Breast Cancer and no insurance can be out of commission anywheres between 4,6 and even 8 months depending on mets.

These treatments and surgeries run thousands of dollars.

You're gonna argue that these people who are between a rock and a hard place are not being abused by these predators?

You're argument here thuse far has been full of crap. I can't wait to see how you close this one out.

[MercutioATC]

104. They're not Santa Claus, they're lenders.

They have something that people need...and the more people need it, the more they can charge for it. That's called BUSINESS. I'm sorry if you feel it's unfair, but that's the way business works.

A business' primary responsibility is to its shareholders and the more money that business makes, the better its shareholders do. Credit card companies are businesses. Most intelligent people realize this.


Let me ask YOU a question. Why is it a lender's responsibility to offer generous terms to borrowers? Give me the name of ONE borrower who was forced to enter into a contract with a lender...just one. People CHOOSE to take these loans...and the terms that go with them.

[inthebrain]

105. People are COERCED and FORCED to used them

You've clearly dismissed very plain and obvious evidence that proves my point.

YOu are doing a poor job trying to reframe the argument.

Secondly, an economic system is supposed to work on trust. Their are written laws and unwritten laws. There are lots of things you can do and are not responsibly for doing but we fulfill both and there is no need legislate them.

Credit card companies charging resonable interest rates for those that use them responsibly falls into this category. They are also in position where they hold a certain amount of public trust to fulfil this.

When they breach that trust is when you have problems. And for a very long time they have taken advantage of that trust.

I ain't gonna argue with you that these companies are not responsible. You seem to have no problem flaunting their irresponsibility. My hope is that people realize this and overthrow these fucking pigs. These fuckers are relyed upon so that others may make value judgements when allowing them a mortgage, car loan or an apartment. You like to ignore that fact. There's a such thing called a "credit report" that applies to other areas and is reliant on having credit extended to you. So yeah, people are FORCED and COERCED to use them.

That's the real world. One wonders if you even live in it.

Thanks for proving my argument.

[MercutioATC]

112. What you really need is parents.

Seriously. If you actually believe that people aren't able to make their own decisions and that other people acting in their own interest constitutes "coercion" and "force", you'd probably be happier letting an adult take care of you.

I know that sounds harsh, but I really don't know any other way to approach this. Your views are childlike. If you expect to be treated the way you think things should work, you really need somebody in your life that can deal with the real world.

You're describing some people's version of Utopia (and other people's version of hell). It doesn't exist. It's decidedly not the "real world".

[inthebrain]

117. When you start throwing around the terms "Utopia" along with "Personal Responsibility"

You are pretty much attacking this issue from the right.

As a matter of fact, your argument here is straight out of some absurd Ayn Randian fantasy land.

And buddy, I've probably got more real world experience under my left pinky nail than you have in your hole body.

It's amazingly fucking evident throughout the whole thread.

And BTW, when folks characterize the credit card industries behavior as "deceptive" and "predatory" perhaps you should put down the Limbaugh and figure out just that the means. It doesn't mean that the people using the credit cards do not understand their agreements or terms of contract. It means the credit card companies are the ones not being "personally responsible" as they ARE LYING TO COSUMERS!!!

You'll notice in the second link the term "require greater disclosure of terms". As in the credit card companies do not disclose all the terms of the agreement to the consumer.

Consider this a clearing house

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Survey Of Credit Card Offers Exposes Consumer Deception



New truthaboutcredit.org Website, Brochure Announced To Avoid Credit Card Hazards

Deceptive credit card offers and practices are sinking more and more consumers into high-cost credit card debt, according to a survey of 100 credit card offers released today by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG). To fight the practices the report identifies, U.S. PIRG also announced a new credit card education campaign featuring both the website "truthaboutcredit.org" and a new brochure describing how consumers can avoid credit card hazards.

"Credit card companies aren't satisfied with a fair profit, so they're gouging consumers with outrageous interest rates as high as 30% APR," said Ed Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director for U.S. PIRG. "But even worse, credit card companies are deceiving consumers into paying unfair late fees and burying deceptive conditions in the small print," he continued.

Among the key findings of the U.S. PIRG report, "The Credit Card Trap: How to Spot It, How to Avoid It," are that credit card terms and conditions are becoming less favorable to consumers; credit card marketing practices are misleading and deceptive; and card marketing to college students is too aggressive.

Deceptive and anti-consumer industry tricks exposed in the report and detailed online at www.truthaboutcredit.org include:

http://www.uspirg.org/newsroom/financial/financial-privacy--security-news/survey-of-credit-card-offers-exposes-consumer-deception
----------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama plans to crack down on deceptive credit-card industry practices that have saddled U.S. consumers with huge debts and soaring interest rates, U.S. officials said on Sunday.

Top White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers said Obama would be "very focused in the very near term on a whole set of issues having to do with credit card abuses."

"We need to do things to stop the marketing of credit in ways that addict people to it," Summers said in an interview on the NBC television talk show "Meet the Press."

Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council, said the administration is concerned about practices that result in consumers being "deceived into paying extraordinarily high rates that they wouldn't have paid if they knew they were getting themselves into

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/obama-plans-crackdown-deceptive-credi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congress Takes Aim At Deceptive Credit Card Lending

It seems like every news source is talking about the recession, stock market crashes, bail outs, and America’s debt problem. One of the contributing factors could be credit card debt and deceptive credit-card industry practices.

It’s safe to say that you probably know someone that got in a little over their heads in credit card debt and they can’t seem to get out of it.

President Barack Obama wants to help. It was part of his campaign platform and on Thursday, top White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers and other officials are scheduled to meet at the White House with top executives of credit card companies.

President Obama plans to crack down on deceptive credit-card industry practices and credit card abuses that have saddled U.S. consumers with huge debts and soaring interest rates.

http://www.huliq.com/1/80037/congress-takes-aim-deceptive-credit-card-lending

[MercutioATC]

121. We have different definitions of "deception" and "abuse".

It's a deceptive and/or abusive practice to market credit cards to college students? Why? As long as the student is 18 and legally able to sign a binding contract, how is the decision whether or not to have a credit card anything other than 100% their responsibility?

Is it a deceptive or abusive practice to charge a $29 or $39 late fee? Why? The schedule of fees is clearly detailed on the credit agreement.

Is it a deceptive or abusive practice to offer a low rate for 6 months or a year and then raise the rate when the offer expires? Why? Again, the terms of the introductory rate are clearly spelled out.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. People don't take responsibility for their actions. The same applies to people who make $50k/year and take out a mortgage with a $3000/month payment. It's not the fault of the lending institution...the borrower should KNOW that they can't afford the payment...but some call it "deceptive lending".

Whether it's their investment strategy, their personal finances or their voting habits, people need to start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop expecting everything to be handed to them.

That's not a "right wing" opinion, it's common sense.

[inthebrain]

125. You're reframing the debate

And completely ignoring the pertinent issues that address the actual arguement. Again, you're view is to blame the consumer (the victims in this scenerio) for practices by crediti card companies where they deceive, abuse and refuse to disclose the all the terms of the agreement to the consumer.

That's not taking personal responsibility.

Your arguement here has shown time and time again to be the irresponisble argument. Making excuses for those practices by credit card companies and blaming the victims of those practices is not responible.

Try again.

And claiming there are two different definitions for abuse, deceive and refusal to disclose is complete admittance that you lost this argument. Very badly at that.

---------------------------

“This legislation reins in abusive credit card practices by preventing companies from changing rates, charging new fees, and adopting new policies without notifying consumers. It will make it easier for cardholders to understand the terms of their agreements,” said Reed, a member of the Banking Committee.

According to a recent study by the Pew Charitable Trusts, 100 percent of credit cards have policies that the Federal Reserve determined cause substantial harm to consumers. And 93 percent of those contracts allow the credit card company to raise the interest rate at any time, for any reason.

http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48752139-senate-passes-bill-banning-abusive-credit-card-practices

--------------------


I have provided facts to back up my arguement. You have not.

[MercutioATC]

128. No, I'm simply arguing that you're misplacing blame.

You claim that CC companies "deceive and abuse" I'm telling you that they do no such thing...at least not by common definition of "deceive" and "abuse".

Name me ONE term that's not disclosed in the contract. There aren't any, because if it isn't in the contract it's not enforceable.


No matter how many times you accuse me of "blaming the victim", there is still no "victim" here.


Here's an idea...why don't you tell me two or three specific practices that you feel are deceptive and/or abusive...and I'll show you:

1) that they're neither abusive nor deceptive to anybody who is responsible, and

2) that they're the exact same business practices used by a ton of other companies.

[laylah]

51. Of course it doesn't!

They throw us scraps and give the userious bastards a walk, silly one :sarcasm: Bastards, one and all! However, talk is cheap, civil disobedience on the other hand...

What an apathetic lot we are, plain and true. I DO NOT do violence but these MF need to see the ire of the American PEOPLE! One can only hope.

[jeanpalmer]

61. It caps rates on existing balances but

the effective date of the Act is: the earlier of either: (1) the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date of enactment; or (2) June 30, 2010. LOL.

So it seems the CC companies have until ~May 18 of 2010 to raise rates on existing balances. Status quo until then. And they won't have to give any notice except the little slip of paper you get with your bill.

Of course, they could try to be nice and start applying the law now on their own :) especially since their borrowing costs are at an all-time low.

[smalll]

63. Debit Card match Credit Cards in terms of all the "convenience" they ever had --

get off the things.

[Pooka Fey]

65. Necessary post and discussion. Reminder on reading postings

DUers, please don't feed the trolls.

[newinnm]

81. Its real simple

Dont carry a balance on your credit card.


nnnm

[inthebrain]

83. The blame the victim mentality that has taken over this board is a sight to behold

Although I'm open to the possibility that some of it is from righties in hiding on this board.

The dismissivness of the fact that Credit Card companies virtually right their own laws that govern their practice is pretty obvious. Total cognitive dissonance.

The mentality being displayed on this thread is one that I would expect from Free Republic, Rush Limbaugh, Jay Severin, Dan Savage and the rest of that crowd. It's really kinda funny. It's issues like this that people come out saying there are no substantial diffences between the two parties and everyone here gets bent out of shape.

[MercutioATC]

91. Again, there's no "victim" here. People are blaming the careless.

If somebody signs a contract without understanding it, only they are to blame.

...and if somebody can't understand a CC contract, they shouldn't have one.

[inthebrain]

95. Then I suppose you would also subscribe to the idea that there is no purpose

for a "credit card bill of rights".

After all, if there are no victims here why even bother introducing such legislation that also misleads people into thinking that there are limits into what these loan sharks can do.

Have you ever once read anything published by consumer advocate groups where they interview people that used to work for Credit Card companies? They fully admit that these people use misleading language in their contracts and are not legally beholden to ANYTHING written in them.

Naive much?

Credit card companies are abusive pricks. And they don't just dabble in credit cards themselves. They also give out health care loans for those that NEED health care services.


"Blame the victm" the true mark of a fake lefitst.

[MercutioATC]

96. I don't understand what your issue is. Just read the friggin' contract.

...and if you don't understand it, don't sign it.

It's really that simple.


The problem is that some people seem to think that they have the right to obtain credit at reasonable terms. They don't. ANY lender operates as a business. It's their JOB to make as much money off of a given borrower as they can. As in ANY business contract, both parties are working in opposition to each other to some degree.

Credit card companies aren't "abusive pricks", they offer a product under certain terms. Those terms are necessarily designed to maximize their profits. If you don't feel the terms are reasonable, don't agree to them.

[inthebrain]

100. You need credit in this society

The way to establish that is to use a credit card.

Tell me, how do you suppose any of these people are suppose to secure an apartment, mortgage or car loan without a credit history. The economy we have is built on borrowing. It is encouraged.

The people are not at fault here.

THe credit card companies who are also responsible for setting up this system ARE!!!!

[MercutioATC]

102. Ummm...that's what cash is for.

You might not remember, but people used to actually save cash to buy things. It worked pretty well.

[Fire1]

103. BINGO!! We have a winner!

[inthebrain]

106. Show me how it's possible for people to pay cash up front for a car or to OWN their home

Not to mention get approved for an apartment by virtue of cash alone.

Try living in the real world.

You seem to think you live in a world where credit reports do not exist. Here's another tip, some jobs actually require that you have a positive credit histoy in order to get hired.

[Fire1]

107. Don't be deliberately obtuse. With the exception of large

ticket items such as houses and cars, cash works pretty well. If anyone needs a positive credit history for a job, I suggest they start cleaning up their fica scores and start using cash.

[inthebrain]

108. Im being obtuse requesting that this ridiculous claim be backed up with evidence

In order to be approved for a mortgage you need positive, long term history of credit. They want to see that you are capable of borrowing money and paying it back. If you do not have that you will not get a mortgage.

Looking at what most people in this coutry make, it is not realistic to expect them to pay cash up front for a home. Especially when that home costs $200,000 plus.

Not gonna happen.

If you want to get approved for an apartment they also want a positive long term credit history. They also want to see a positive long term history with a credit card.

Again, I am not being obtuse. This is the real world.

Also, you are poor and can not open a back account as you don't have the income to set aside, banks require a drivers lisence AND A FUCKING MAJOR CREDIT CARD as ID.

[Fire1]

110. Not being insensitive, but anyone trying to purchase a

home, let alone one worth 200k, had first better be able to show they can afford the payments. Secondly, millions of people are going to come to grips with the fact that they are going to have to rebuild their credit. So, some apartments and a lot of mortgages are going to have to wait. It's just that simple. Bank accounts are opened in my state with just a drivers license or some form of state id and a minimum balance of 40 or 50 bucks. No major credit card is required for identification or otherwise.

[Baby Snooks]

131. Which state?

Some states allow "second chance" checking accounts for people with bad credit. And charge $15-25 per month plus other fees that they don't charge customers with good credit. Some require a minimum account balance. So most don't open up checking accounts and lose $5-10 when they cash the check at the employer's bank. And if it's out of state, they lose 1-2% at the check cashing store.

There really are two Democratic parties apparently to go with the two Americas. Democrats with money and Democrats who just don't matter and should go live under a bridge until they can "get their life together."

Half the people on DU apparently really belong on a Republican forum when they take this attitude towards other people.

[Fire1]

134. I have to be honest with you. I have never in my life heard of

having any kind of credit to open a checking account. Minimum balances, yes but check charges vary among banks. I live in Michigan and check cashing shops are not as plentiful as they once were even six or seven years ago. My attitude is one of compassion as well as responsibility.

[Milo_Bloom]

113. It's actually even worse than what you say.

Not only do you HAVE TO have a credit card... you basically HAVE TO run a balance in order to have a good FICO score and qualify for a loan.

One of my friends swore off credit cards completely and lived only on his bank account and use the check card for most major purchases. He does quite well, but when he went to buy a house, was shocked to find out his FICO score was too low and his credit history too thin.

very simply, NOT having a balance on credit cards works against you when your score is calculated. The system is set up to basically require you to carry a balance equalling about 30% of your outstanding credit to get your maximum score.

[MercutioATC]

122. I have an unpopular secret for you.

Not everybody is entitled to own a house or a new car or a big-screen TV.

How does one "pay cash up front for a car"? They save their money and buy a used car....people used to do it all of the time.

Credit is not an entitlement.

[inthebrain]

127. When you buy a used car SOMEONE had to have bought it new

And in this economy, with what the majority of people make, it is not realistic to expect them to save money for a new car. Without that person taking out a loan for new car you would not have a used car.

ANd many people have jobs that require them to take out customers. The company will require the employee to have A NEW CAR.

Others have to travel long distances and require the dependability of a new car. They can not afford to go a day or two to await repairs.

Nobody is talking here about big screen televisions or that they are "enititled" to them. Then again the word "entitled" along with "personal responsibility" and "Utopia" are words right wingers like to use to frame their issues. Again, you attack this issue from a very extreme right wing stand point that has no relevance to real world circumstances.

[MercutioATC]

129. They don't have the money to save for a car but they can make payments?

If I save $300/month for 60 months, I'll have $18k to spend on a car.

If I buy a car for $18k and pay for it over 60 months (assuming 7% interest), I'll pay $356.42/month.

How do I afford the $356 payment if I can't afford to save $300/month?


The reason I used the word "entitled" is because your statements seem to imply that credit is a right. Credit is not a right...it's granted at the sole discretion of the lender. That lender can offer to loan money at any terms they like and the prospective borrower is free to accept or refuse that offer. Unless the lender violates the terms of the contract, there is no "victim", because the borrower has agreed to the terms.

[inthebrain]

132. You obvuiously are not capable of doing it

Otherwise you would not be buying used cars.

Typical right wing hypocrisey.

[sl8]

135. A little help, please?

I didn't see the post where the poster you're replying to said that they exclusively bought used cars, but I'm willing to take your word for it. Provisionally, anyway.

Could you point out where the poster indicated that they bought used cars because they weren't financially capable of buying a new car? Not that there's anything wrong with that as a reason, but you seem to be implying that's the only reason someone would buy a used car. Perhaps I'm not understanding your point?

p.s The ad hominems aren't helping you to make your point.

[inthebrain]

136. It's possible that I may be confusing him with someone else

But I recall him saying earlier that he pays cash for everything. Even cars.

If I'm wrong about that I am more than willing to concede that I am wrong. I'm not digging through 100+ posts.

[sl8]

137. But that's a non sequitur.

But I recall him saying earlier that he pays cash for everything. Even cars.

It doesn't follow that paying cash for a car excludes buying a new car. I know.

If I'm wrong about that I am more than willing to concede that I am wrong. I'm not digging through 100+ posts.

Me neither. That's why I said I'd take your word, in my first sentence. :7

[MercutioATC]

138. I'm not the poster you're thinking of, but I DO buy used cars.

I currently own a 1983 Porsche 911 and a 2001 Audi S8.

I bought the Porsche used because I like that body style.

I bought the S8 used because it was in mint condition and had 54k miles when I bought it (3 years ago). The original window sticker was $78,300. I got it for $21,500. It's big and it's fast and I love driving it.

I paid cash for the Porsche. I took out a loan for the Audi which I paid off in 2 years. I could have paid cash, but it was financially advantageous to do the short-term loan.


I'm not suggesting that nobody should buy a new car or that nobody should finance a car. I'm stating that nobody has the RIGHT to buy a new car or finance a car. If you can obtain financing, that's great...but the offer is (and should be) at the lenders' discretion. Nobody is guaranteed a "good deal".

[Raineyb]

116. Yeah when their paycheck kept up with the cost of living

Now easy credit has been substituted for raising wages.

If your check can't buy what it used to how do you think people have been propping up this economy all this time?

[newinnm]

123. Again its really simple

Its doesnt take a PHD in economics to know that carrying a huge balance on a CC is bad practice. And yes the CC do write their own contracts but if you dont want to be bound to a contract..DONT SIGN IT. Its just that simple


nnnm