Why Credit Card Companies are so Mean

[Caliga]

Yeah, yet another example of what happens when politicians feel the need to "protect" people - in this case, the desire to make sure that even people who cannot afford them can buy a home anyway.

Government is not the solution, they are the problem, in most cases. No sane economist is going to tell you that these new restrictions on credit card companies make any damn sense at all.

[DGuller]

Perhaps I am making the incorrect assumption that most people have the forsight to consider health care costs when making lifestyle choices.

It is an incorrect assumption.

That's more of a la-la-land assumption.  First of all, humans still have an extremely imperfect understanding of cause and effect in health.  Second of all, once you're sick, good luck finding out the cost of your medical problem, that's very well hidden from you.  Third of all, good luck accurately calculating the change in net present of value of medical treatments due to consumption of one more burger.  Last time I was in Burger King, I didn't see anyone doing that.

[Malthus]

So far, no one has bothered to mention any specifics concerning the actual proposal. It is all very well for those of us who automatically assume any government regulation is "the problem", and so I assume don't need to know specifics, but for the rest of us - what exactly is it that is under consideration?

Is this a fair summary? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30846334/

[Berkut]

So far, no one has bothered to mention any specifics concerning the actual proposal. It is all very well for those of us who automatically assume any government regulation is "the problem", and so I assume don't need to know specifics, but for the rest of us - what exactly is it that is under consideration?

Is this a fair summary? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30846334/

Why in the world would you assume that people who think the government is the problem are us uninformed as you are about something they are discussing?

This has been talked about ad naseum for the last several weeks.

[Berkut]

Ability to pay
Card issuers must consider the consumer's ability to make the required payments under the credit card's terms before raising limits or issuing a new card.

So card issuers have to consider the consumers ability to pay before they issue the card - isn't that the consumers job?

Young consumers

    * Before issuing a card to a person under 21, the issuer must obtain an application which contains either the signature of a co-signer over 21 or information indicating an independent means of repaying any credit extended.
    * Card issuers may not raise the credit limit on accounts held by a person under 21 who has a co-signer without written permission from the co-signer.
    * No prescreened card offers can be made to people under 21 unless they have consented to receive such offers.
    * Card issuers cannot provide tangible gifts to students on campus in exchange for filling out a credit card application.
    * Colleges must publicly disclose any marketing contracts made with a card issuer.

What a load of horseshit. Mostly.

Young people are too stupid to think for themselves, so lets make sure that even those who CAN think for themselves are hamstrung!

Credit card agreements will be posted online and the Fed must keep a public Web site providing them to the public.

Oh my, another pork barrel project, coming through! I wonder who gets that little multi-million dollar deal?

[DGuller]

Is this a fair summary? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30846334/

I fail to see anything remotely shocking, except for maybe requiring the credit card company to lower the hiked interest rate due to default back down after 6 months of on-time payments.  I do see a lot of common sense regulations that are designed to combat "gotcha fees", predatory behavior, or other behavior designed to keep the cardholders from making informed or rational decisions.

[Berkut]

Existing balances
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.

This, I think is the meat of the bill.

It seems pretty reasonable, but think about this.

The agreement you made with the CC provider when you signed up is binding. So its not like they can come along and raise your rates on the money you already borrowed anyway.

What this is "protecting" you from is them coming along, telling you your rates are going to go up, and if you don't like it, you can cancel the card and pay off your balance under the agreed upon re-payment schedule.

Now, we agree that they can certainly come along and say "Hey, we don't want to loan you any more money, so we are canceling your account - please pay off the balance under the agreed upon payment terms", right? After all, they can hardly be obligated to keep loaning you money.

So what this does, in effect, is ban them from saying instead "Hey, you have a choice: Either we close your account, or you agree to raise the rates". So it is effectively telling the credit card company that they CANNOT give you such a choice.

How does that make any sense at all? Right now, if you don't want to pay any higher interest rates than those you agreed upon, you can exercise that right whenever you wish. The only thing this bill is going to do is shift the burden of paying for deadbeats from themselves to everyone else, since we are all going to have to subsidize the high risk borrowers.

[Berkut]

Is this a fair summary? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30846334/

I fail to see anything remotely shocking, except for maybe requiring the credit card company to lower the hiked interest rate due to default back down after 6 months of on-time payments.  I do see a lot of common sense regulations that are designed to combat "gotcha fees", predatory behavior, or other behavior designed to keep the cardholders from making informed or rational decisions.

Oh please, what a bleeding heart bunch of nonsense. What are these "predatory behaviors"? how is it predatory to offer someone a deal different from what they have now, when they can simply refuse that deal whenever they wish?

It is only predatory if you buy into the assumption that people MUST HAVE MORE CREDIT ALWAYS. Like it is some kind of Constitutional Right to borrow money.

How can a law that restricts the ability of credit card companies to make business deals with their customers be spun as a way to ensure full disclosure? If you want better disclosure, you do not need to pass a law restricting anything, by definition. You just need a law demanding the disclosure.

[alfred russel]

So far, no one has bothered to mention any specifics concerning the actual proposal. It is all very well for those of us who automatically assume any government regulation is "the problem", and so I assume don't need to know specifics, but for the rest of us - what exactly is it that is under consideration?

Is this a fair summary? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30846334/

With the exception of the "young consumers" section, those all seem sound to me. If you are an adult at 18, you should be subject to the same irritating junk mail that everyone else is.

[Malthus]

So far, no one has bothered to mention any specifics concerning the actual proposal. It is all very well for those of us who automatically assume any government regulation is "the problem", and so I assume don't need to know specifics, but for the rest of us - what exactly is it that is under consideration?

Is this a fair summary? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30846334/

Why in the world would you assume that people who think the government is the problem are us uninformed as you are about something they are discussing?

This has been talked about ad naseum for the last several weeks.

Well, for one, until I posted this link, you hadn't bothered to actually mention any specifics in this particular thread, other than to launch into a screed about the evils of government. 

[Berkut]

So far, no one has bothered to mention any specifics concerning the actual proposal. It is all very well for those of us who automatically assume any government regulation is "the problem", and so I assume don't need to know specifics, but for the rest of us - what exactly is it that is under consideration?

Is this a fair summary? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30846334/

With the exception of the "young consumers" section, those all seem sound to me. If you are an adult at 18, you should be subject to the same irritating junk mail that everyone else is.

Maybe we can just borrow the money straight from Uncle Sam, he knows what is best for us anyway!

Amazing how people are so willing to embrace the Nanny state.

[alfred russel]

Oh my, another pork barrel project, coming through! I wonder who gets that little multi-million dollar deal?

Yeah, that seems like a waste of money. Who wants to read a bunch of credit card agreements?

The only purpose I can see for it is to be an easy reference guide for lawsuits.

[Berkut]

So far, no one has bothered to mention any specifics concerning the actual proposal. It is all very well for those of us who automatically assume any government regulation is "the problem", and so I assume don't need to know specifics, but for the rest of us - what exactly is it that is under consideration?

Is this a fair summary? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30846334/

Why in the world would you assume that people who think the government is the problem are us uninformed as you are about something they are discussing?

This has been talked about ad naseum for the last several weeks.

Well, for one, until I posted this link, you hadn't bothered to actually mention any specifics in this particular thread, other than to launch into a screed about the evils of government. 

Cheap shot Malthus - I've been talking about teh evils of government in the context of this particular issue the entire thread, and nothing I have said has been off base or incorrect in regards to the particulars. It's not like I've been going off and bitching about something that wasn't even happening, just because I didn't post a link to a summary of the law - which I thought we all understood already.

Just because you want to argue before you know the facts doesn't mean you should assume everyone else does the same.

[Berkut]

Oh my, another pork barrel project, coming through! I wonder who gets that little multi-million dollar deal?

Yeah, that seems like a waste of money.

Don't be launching into screeds about the evil of government!

[alfred russel]

Well, for one, until I posted this link, you hadn't bothered to actually mention any specifics in this particular thread, other than to launch into a screed about the evils of government. 

I didn't know what was in the bill, so I'm glad you posted it. However, I knew that the government was taking steps to protect me, and I am for things that keep me safe. So I knew that I would be for this legislation.