Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Obama Seeks Consumer Credit Guards
ap.google.com — Barack Obama called for new restrictions on "predatory" credit card companies he says deceive consumers into piling up massive debt they have little hope of repaying.
ObamaforAmerica- 638 diggs
- digg it
- cashman57, on 12/05/2007, -39/+9Isn't that two faced?
On one hand he rants about credit card debt and on the other he votes to increase the federal debt.
- carbog, on 12/05/2007, -5/+8The most prosperous counties in the world have the most debt. There is such a thing as good dept as well as bad dept, and credit card debt is as bad as they get.
- cranium, on 12/05/2007, -8/+4Thanks, Einstein, I hope you only have "good" "dept".
- carbog, on 12/05/2007, -4/+6Dept ... debt .. whaterver, you get the point
- madmage, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Yep, several trillion dollars owed mostly to china and the world bank is great.....
- carbog, on 12/05/2007, -5/+8The most prosperous counties in the world have the most debt. There is such a thing as good dept as well as bad dept, and credit card debt is as bad as they get.
- Greenearth, on 12/05/2007, -5/+23Having a choice between credit card debt and paying medical expenses is a difficult call.
- cranium, on 12/05/2007, -6/+3Because bread lines are a much better choice, obviously.
- sotopheavy, on 12/05/2007, -6/+13Having a choice between America and medical expenses is a difficult call.
- THEROC, on 12/05/2007, -35/+9you're the best mami ever, barack.
could i have like a government robot that tases me if i forget to wash my hands after using the bathroom?- carbog, on 12/05/2007, -2/+6more like a government robot that protects you from getting tased if you don't wash your hands
- FatAmerican, on 12/05/2007, -1/+1Not really because you didn't voluntarily agree to get tased.
- orca94, on 12/05/2007, -5/+7I wish all your rabidly anti-government neo-anarchist kids really could live out your fantasy somewhere. Maybe on a large farm, far, far away from here so I won't be able to hear your bitching when you get shot in the face by some idiot with a gun that's far too powerful for private use.
- slenderdog, on 12/05/2007, -3/+3Not if I shoot him first!
- aadsfasdf, on 12/05/2007, -5/+2I agree, smaller government is synonymous with giving criminals guns, letting people drive drunk and murder children and making homeless execution a public event. But hey, the strong arm of the law is going to stop criminals getting guns, big guns, and shooting people in the face. Thank god for nanny government, we don't have to worry about anything like that, the government wouldn't let us get hurt.
- FatAmerican, on 12/05/2007, -4/+4At the heart of libertarian philosophy is the mutually beneficial (or at least mutually agreeable) transaction. Being shot in the face is NOT a mutually beneficial transaction, as the person being shot probably did not agree to this transaction. It is up to each individual person to look out for themselves and be free to make their own choices, even if they government deems it a mistake.
- carbog, on 12/05/2007, -2/+6more like a government robot that protects you from getting tased if you don't wash your hands
- xstnothing, on 12/05/2007, -26/+12The expansion of government control will never solve anything. People who get into debt sign a contract with a company that is legally binding, if they can't comply with the conditions of the contract they shouldn't sign it in the first place. The government has no right to enforce regulations on companies, the people that directly interact with the companies do. The reason people can't make ends meet in this country is partly because of personal irresponsibility, but mostly because of a grotesque monetary system. A sound monetary system, involving getting rid of government restrictions and a return to a value based currency, would cause costs to go down and your dollar to be worth more. This way, people will be able to cover all of their basic needs, with no need for government intervention.
- PATSCRU, on 12/05/2007, -10/+16Having a government entity be the single payer for all healthcare would ensure costs go down, as long as the process is run efficiently. You'd be ignorant to think that more privatization in healthcare is a good idea. Every european country with somewhat socialized medicine seems to be doing great, not perfect, but at least they're ***** insured without having to choose between medicine or groceries.
- SquigglyP, on 12/05/2007, -2/+5those other countries are not as massively in debt as we are either. We borrow money from them, in fact. There's no way we can afford to set up the same sort of healthcare system. Fixing our financial situation should be the absolute first priority of this government. But apparently the people running the country are as dumb as the idiots with no savings and $50,000 in credit card debt. It's pretty much the exact same scheme.
- IrvineS2K, on 12/05/2007, -0/+6I know someone that has racked up $200,000 in debt through student loans and typical American fiscal irresponsibility. She is 35 and just jumped into the military so that she could get some money back in 4 years to *start* helping to pay off the debt. And she has a dental license. :-| How sad is that....
RE: other countries being in debt. Gotta look at nation debt vs GDP ratio (right?). Apparently by that metric, some European countries are in a lot more debt than the US is. SO, would that then lead us to conclude that their socialized healthcare systems has become a fiscally irresponsible move for them? Or, does it mean the US should go ahead and do the same cause hey, other countries are doing it?
(BTW it's late, and my roommate told me I make weird comments on digg, so apologies in advance. :S)
- IrvineS2K, on 12/05/2007, -0/+6I know someone that has racked up $200,000 in debt through student loans and typical American fiscal irresponsibility. She is 35 and just jumped into the military so that she could get some money back in 4 years to *start* helping to pay off the debt. And she has a dental license. :-| How sad is that....
- cranium, on 12/05/2007, -4/+3- Every european country with somewhat socialized medicine seems to be doing great, not perfect -
Yeah, they're high on the hog living off of the US paying for almost all of the R&D. But who needs that anyway?- Flamancot, on 12/05/2007, -2/+5why is everybody so stupid?
- aadsfasdf, on 12/05/2007, -3/+2A government is NEVER going to be as efficient as a business because there is NO incentive for them to be, and often there is an incentive for them to WASTE funds intentionally.
- niczar, on 12/05/2007, -0/+8And that is why government run health insurance has operating costs < 2%, and private insurances spend up to 30% in operational costs (ie everything but health).
It's even true for Medicare, which is itself quite poorly managed compared to European systems.
To wit: in France, when you go to the doctor and get medication at the pharmacist, there is NO paperwork, no paper whatsoever involved for the insurance system. The only piece of paper is the prescription. Everything else is electronic. Privacy is also respected, starting with medical information being protected by strong penalties (up to prison time) for those divulging private data. Contrast this with the US where you credit card company basically knows how often you have hemorroids.
So yeah, keep your awesome free market, thankyuverymuch. - senatorpjt, on 12/05/2007, -1/+5It depends how you define efficiency. If you define it efficiency as profit, then yes, business is more efficient. If you define efficiency as directing a maximum amount of revenue towards the central purpose of the operation, then government can be more efficient.
Specifically, the government would provide better care, but not profit. A business provides lesser care, but generates profit.
- niczar, on 12/05/2007, -0/+8And that is why government run health insurance has operating costs < 2%, and private insurances spend up to 30% in operational costs (ie everything but health).
- Jeffmr1, on 12/05/2007, -1/+1Patscru, you forget that government, the very solution youre proposing, is what created today's medical industry. A true free market system, with doctors running healthcare and not the HMOs, and with pharmacists preparing medicines and not drug corporations, much like we had before the health insurance industry was created, costs would be extraordinarily low, charity at record highs, and most importantly, more quality because your doctor isn't mandated how much time he's allowed to spend working with you.
- SquigglyP, on 12/05/2007, -2/+5those other countries are not as massively in debt as we are either. We borrow money from them, in fact. There's no way we can afford to set up the same sort of healthcare system. Fixing our financial situation should be the absolute first priority of this government. But apparently the people running the country are as dumb as the idiots with no savings and $50,000 in credit card debt. It's pretty much the exact same scheme.
- aadsfasdf, on 12/05/2007, -0/+5Agree with first part about personal responsibility and government having no place in bailing out people.
- FatAmerican, on 12/05/2007, -1/+2Agree with xstnothing, you can't foolproof people's lives.
- rainyman, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1There's a huge difference between foolproofing and regulating.
- rainyman, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1Would you propose instead to remove all restrictions and regulations on credit card contracts? So, what, screw the people get screwed over by "'predatory' credit card companies [that] deceive consumers into piling up massive debt." They deserve it for being deceived.
- quisph, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1Ah yes, the old "personal responsibility" argument.
Even if you don't want to recognize that some people are simply *incapable* of whatever level of personal responsibility you deem appropriate (due to mental illness, retardation, dementia, or even normal genetic variations in intelligence), this does not absolve the lenders of responsibility.
When one party is *knowingly and deliberately* taking advantage of another's ignorance, weakness, desperation, adverse circumstances, etc., responsibility does not begin and end with the victim. Even if the victim "should have known better," that does not suddenly make it *okay* for the lender to seek out people who "don't know better," and take advantage of them. That is unconscionable.
Even libertarians should recognize that such exchanges are not "mutually beneficial," and condemn them.
- PATSCRU, on 12/05/2007, -10/+16Having a government entity be the single payer for all healthcare would ensure costs go down, as long as the process is run efficiently. You'd be ignorant to think that more privatization in healthcare is a good idea. Every european country with somewhat socialized medicine seems to be doing great, not perfect, but at least they're ***** insured without having to choose between medicine or groceries.
- marytnurse, on 12/05/2007, -8/+23xsnothing, I agree. Until they start changing the rules in the middle of the game. That's what Senator Obama is talking about here. And if all the money is in the hands of corporations, then how does that force costs down no matter how the dollar is valued? If the value is high and you still have no dollars, then you are still broke. We need to either take away corporate breaks or give workers equivalent breaks. I favor giving workers the breaks myself, to keep us competitive internationally. But then I may not be as well moneyed as you are.
- Y0tsuya, on 12/05/2007, -8/+2The debtors would not have any problems if they followed a simple rule to not buy stuff they can't afford. For every debtor who got in the hole due to medical bills, there are probably 20 others who just got to have that plasma TV or Gucci bag.
It's a very simple lesson. Takes only a few minutes of your time:
http://consumerist.com/consumer/clips/snl-skit-don ...- rainyman, on 12/05/2007, -1/+5Key words are "predatory" and "deceive."
- niczar, on 12/05/2007, -2/+3Gee, why are you ruining perfectly fine corporatist propaganda with them pesky "facts"?
- rainyman, on 12/05/2007, -1/+5Key words are "predatory" and "deceive."
- Y0tsuya, on 12/05/2007, -8/+2The debtors would not have any problems if they followed a simple rule to not buy stuff they can't afford. For every debtor who got in the hole due to medical bills, there are probably 20 others who just got to have that plasma TV or Gucci bag.
- xstnothing, on 12/05/2007, -9/+10@marytnurse
If we fix the monetary system, more money will be in the hands of the people. Lower government spending, then we can lower taxes(and actually get rid of the income tax). The money can't stay in the hands of the corporations if the people stop giving them money. Just and deserving companies will prosper, those with deceptive business practices will be forced to change or will fail. More money in the hands of the people means people have more power to hold companies accountable. If current companies can't meet the needs of consumers another company will be created by the consumers who have enough capital. This creates competition in the market place. Competition=lowered costs. Yes, I agree you are still broke if you don't have money, but that would be the point where you should stop expecting the government to provide for you and be an individual and make a living for yourself. I say we need to eliminate all corporate breaks. Giving out any kind of "break" is a government interference in the free market and a furthering of government control over the economy. I currently work at Pizza Hut, so I wouldn't say I'm well moneyed at all.- orca94, on 12/05/2007, -6/+3Another Ron Pidiot who thinks they understand economics because they read some pop-econ article online from some obscure foundation. If this is what the world is coming to we're all *****.
Getting rid of an income tax and replacing it with an excise tax hurts poor people. Excise taxes are an inherently regressive tax scheme.- slezzzter, on 12/05/2007, -1/+1Two problems here:
1. Corporations don't pay taxes. Oh, they send a check to the government, but they embed that cost into everything you buy. So, although it's not institutionalized, we are already paying what amounts to a VAT or sales tax.
2. The primary sales tax plan, the Fair Tax, includes a monthly prebate of the tax paid on spending up to the federal poverty level. The poverty level is the government's calculation of the cost of the basic necessities of life. I know for certain that it's possible to live on far less, but no person who buys only basic necessities would pay tax under this plan. This doesn't hurt the poor, it hurts the middle class, so it's not regressive, it's more of Gaussian tax scheme.
I still have issues with the Fair Tax. However, our country seems to have a major problem with not earning enough and spending too much; it only makes sense to tax the spending, not the earning.- senatorpjt, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1What's wrong with having ONLY corporations pay taxes?
- floorman56, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1Because they pass the tax to people who buy there stuff
- MorbenDK, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1Right. They would pass it on to the people who buy stuff, just like they do now.
- senatorpjt, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1What's wrong with having ONLY corporations pay taxes?
- slezzzter, on 12/05/2007, -1/+1Two problems here:
- amightywind, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1The best thing you the consumer can do is take a small fraction of your paycheck and buy stock or mutual funds. If you start in your 20's and have some discipline (sorely lacking among 95% of the population), you will find that you have a stake in those corporations operating profitably. They are making me wealthy.
- orca94, on 12/05/2007, -6/+3Another Ron Pidiot who thinks they understand economics because they read some pop-econ article online from some obscure foundation. If this is what the world is coming to we're all *****.
- afruff23, on 12/05/2007, -6/+32Wait...you mean all that stuff I bought with my credit card has to be repaid?! WHO knew!?
- slezzzter, on 12/05/2007, -1/+1"But... you said it was a magical goodies creator."
- slezzzter, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1Really? No Sealab fans on digg? Seemed like the perfect fit.
- xstnothing, on 12/05/2007, -14/+3One of the reasons health care is so expensive in the US is because of the low value of the dollar. We fix that and health care becomes much more affordable. The government can not be trusted to run things smoothly. It's best left to run the least possible.
- scottc, on 12/05/2007, -3/+8The low dollar barely, if at all, affects health care costs. It drives up the cost of things we import and makes things we export cheaper for the rest of the world. Neither of those are going to factor into health care costs, except that our pharmaceutical companies will benefit from increased exports.
- orca94, on 12/05/2007, -1/+7So... Was health care any cheaper (relatively) back when the dollar was strong(i.e. back when $.86=1 Euro)? No.
Thus, you're wrong.
- JoJoMoMo, on 12/05/2007, -9/+21Talk is cheep. If he doesn't introduce legislation, it's not sincere. Politicians love to substitute talk for action.
- Pauliver, on 12/05/2007, -2/+3Yeah, and they love to make excuses like "I won't introduce legislation right now because I'm busy running a national campaign and trying to beat the frontrunner nominee." So lazy.
- JenadaeXX, on 12/05/2007, -2/+3Why in gods name would we want to introduce this at all. Its basically spending money to help other people not spend money?
- mal1964, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1This is talking to a lot of people and all them will listen and it will get some votes. It might never happen but getting your vote did.
- div2n, on 12/05/2007, -0/+3This is what prudent politicians do. They rattle their sabers which pleases the populous while giving corporations the hint to shape up or else.
Everybody wins if corporations do what is right. The people benefit because the bad behavior stops. The companies win because they got to do it on their terms. The market wins because there aren't new government regulations forcing them to behave a certain way. The politician wins because the people remember it was them that got the ball rolling.
I know that there are times when legislation is absolutely necessary and this will probably be one of those cases. But for now, I don't personally see anything wrong with taking this approach.
But I am an Obama supporter, so some might say I'm biased even though I've always felt this way about this issue.
- polymyxin, on 12/05/2007, -13/+6More big government interference in the free market. RP08!
- cyberdork, on 12/05/2007, -6/+20Vote for Ron Paul, because he will give all the power to the corporations!
- pintomp3, on 12/05/2007, -1/+9i put all my faith in enron to do the right thing for the country.
- aadsfasdf, on 12/05/2007, -2/+1Not paying off people's debts for being irresponsible? That's practically condoning ENRON! Non-interventionist? Like sit back and let HITLER and the NAZIs take over the world? yeah, yeah, get some new material.
- pintomp3, on 12/05/2007, -1/+9i put all my faith in enron to do the right thing for the country.
- IrvineS2K, on 12/05/2007, -0/+3Nope, not corporations -- customers/people. This is the big misunderstanding re: free trade vs what we have now. Right now corporations are legally treated as individuals and that needs to stop.
- carbog, on 12/05/2007, -3/+3Do any Ron Paul supporters know what caused the great depression? I guess not.
- slenderdog, on 12/05/2007, -1/+2Do you?
- carbog, on 12/05/2007, -0/+3yes, i took a history class. Anyone with any knowledge on the subject would tell you it was because of Calvin Coolidge, the ron paul of the 20's. He believed in small government and no regulation of the private sector. Then FDR came in and put all the government regulation in place that Paul wants to get rid of now. There is some value in learning history
- WilliamDavis, on 12/05/2007, -1/+2Perhaps you should try speaking with some economics professors instead of history professors. Just sayin.
- slenderdog, on 12/05/2007, -1/+2I have some knowledge on the subject. You should read The Great Crash by John Kenneth Galbraith as an introduction to the subject. The depression was not "caused" by Calvin Coolidge. Galbraith identifies many contributing factors, but no single cause. Did you acquire more knowledge than Galbraith had in your class? There is some value in learning history. Now go learn some.
- carbog, on 12/05/2007, -0/+3yes, i took a history class. Anyone with any knowledge on the subject would tell you it was because of Calvin Coolidge, the ron paul of the 20's. He believed in small government and no regulation of the private sector. Then FDR came in and put all the government regulation in place that Paul wants to get rid of now. There is some value in learning history
- senatorpjt, on 12/05/2007, -1/+1*****, even Bernanke admitted that the Fed played a primary role in the depression. http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2 ...
- slenderdog, on 12/05/2007, -1/+2Do you?
- cyberdork, on 12/05/2007, -6/+20Vote for Ron Paul, because he will give all the power to the corporations!
- steve693, on 12/05/2007, -17/+15I can't make responsible decisions in regards to my credit and debt. PLZ HELP ME GUV'MENT!!
- pintomp3, on 12/05/2007, -1/+21universal default and retroactive interest rates should be illegal.
- MorbenDK, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1damn straight. Same thing with charging interest on transaction fees.
- tigeruppercut23, on 12/05/2007, -12/+4This is retarded. Way to show that you don't know ***** about the economy, Obama.
- mal1964, on 12/05/2007, -7/+3It would be nice also if they could help with sighing all the mumbo jumbo contract stuff, and if we go crazy and buy to much for one person to carry they could be there to help carry the stuff. That's government working for the people.
- SquigglyP, on 12/05/2007, -14/+10I call for people to stop being retards and accumulating massive debts they can't pay. Credit cards aren't free money, they are the exact opposite, in fact. I have never had one and never will. I can't fathom people racking up $50,000 + in credit card debt, but the average i believe is in the 40's. That's ***** insane. Making the minimum payments on that (what most people do, cause that's the 'bill' they send you) you'd be paying that for teh rest of your life and maybe not even get half of it paid off. You buy something for $50 on a credit card and it ends up costing you four times that amount in interest. People need to learn how to do without worthless ***** like i-phones and -pods and all this other crap that eats up huge piles of savings. You don't have to give up everything, but if you blow more cash on crap like that than you save, you're going to be in trouble in a decade or so. I'll ***** guarantee it. If you're just starting your first job right now (and i assume many on Digg are), take some advice: Save half of each check. SAVE it, not in a checking account, in a savings account. Don't touch it and just keep saving half your check like that. In a couple years you'll be better off than most people your age. A LOT better off.
- JenadaeXX, on 12/05/2007, -1/+7Why is this being dug down?
- ntriusbil, on 12/05/2007, -1/+4You don't go around Digg telling people not to buy Apple products. That's like telling people not to buy hybrid cars or turtlenecks.
- nakani, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2You haven't lived until you've Dugg an iPhone story on your iPhone while driving your Prius in a black turtleneck sweater!
- ntriusbil, on 12/05/2007, -1/+4You don't go around Digg telling people not to buy Apple products. That's like telling people not to buy hybrid cars or turtlenecks.
- SteveSgt, on 12/05/2007, -3/+4The only way I could have saved HALF of my paycheck while at my first job after college would have been to live with my parents. Ooops! That wouldn't have worked, they were 2,200 miles away! Just because a lot of diggers are tech geeks who get jobs at 2X - 3X the poverty level after college, doesn't mean we all get that lucky. I agree that getting into credit card debt compounds the problem though. Have you ever read every word of a credit card agreement, a software license agreement, or any of those other deliberate corporate bamboozles of a lay-person? Do you actually expect the average person to understand those agreements?
- slezzzter, on 12/05/2007, -1/+4You better believe I read every word of my credit card agreement before I signed. Choosing a credit card is a major decision. Grace periods and rewards are the main concerns. Interest shouldn't be a major concern since you should never carry a balance on your card. Canceling a credit card is bad for your credit, so it's important to choose wisely.
I get offers from Sears to replace my vinyl siding all the time, but just because it's easy to get (at least according to the card), doesn't mean I'd do it without a ton of research first. Same goes for those myriad credit card offers.- senatorpjt, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2Just so you know, cancelling a credit card without a balance isn't "bad" for your credit. The only effect it has is lowering your total available credit, which can affect some credit decisions. However, it's not "bad" in the sense that cancelling cards will affect your credit over the long term like a default would. Establishing another line of credit, or having the credit limit increased on your current cards to the combined limit of the cancelled ones will end up generating a net zero effect.
- SquigglyP, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1I wasn't really taking about first job after college. I was talking more about the first actual job. McDonald's, Best Buy. Seniors in highschool or between that and college. Most kids just blow it all - i know i did - and it's a shame, cause had i saved i would have had a much better time of it, been able to have gotten my feet planted more firmly earlier in life. But first job after college works, too. Some people just need to learn how to live in poverty for a while.
- slezzzter, on 12/05/2007, -1/+4You better believe I read every word of my credit card agreement before I signed. Choosing a credit card is a major decision. Grace periods and rewards are the main concerns. Interest shouldn't be a major concern since you should never carry a balance on your card. Canceling a credit card is bad for your credit, so it's important to choose wisely.
- pensivewombat, on 12/05/2007, -1/+5"Credit cards aren't free money"
You think people don't the ***** know that? It is overwhelming arrogance to assume that just because you have been lucky enough to be able to make ends meet that anyone who has trouble is a worthless drain on society.- floorman56, on 12/05/2007, -0/+3You think people don't the ***** know that?
Well ...no. If people had to hand over cash for the stuff they wanted it would give them a pause " Do I REALLY need this?" Hand over 10 $100 bills for that TV and you feel a pull in your gut. CC's prevents that because you don't see the money so in your mind it's free. Tell me would there be a problem with people over spending if there were no CC's? - nakani, on 12/05/2007, -2/+1Survival of the fittest. Maybe now they'll realize they need to learn basic economics and personal finance.
- SquigglyP, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1I haven't been that lucky, really. i was flat on my ass broke, living in a trailer, eating the food the nice people at the Waffle House down the road would give me for free. Six months of that and then i could no longer afford to live in the trailer AND have electricity. So i lived without for another six months. I had no phone TV computer radio car. Nothing. That was pretty much rock bottom. So it's not like i've had a silver spoon stuck up my ass my whole life. I've since bounced back, own a car, am buying a house and have a decent job. And Floorman makes a good point. There's no cash exchange, and people figure they can afford the smaller payments if they buy that Bigscreen TV and that iPhone. And the new fridge. And the new sofa, bed, several new outfits, meals out, etc etc. People pay for GAS with it. As if gas wasn't already expensive enough. I'm not speaking from arrogance, I'm speaking as a person who knows the real value of a few bucks, and why those few bucks should be saved as often as you can do it.
- floorman56, on 12/05/2007, -0/+3You think people don't the ***** know that?
- JenadaeXX, on 12/05/2007, -1/+7Why is this being dug down?
- JenadaeXX, on 12/05/2007, -8/+2Obama has a lot of nice ideas but now isn't the time. We need someone who is going to reduce our debt. All of these programs he has in mind is going to cost a fortune and not help us recuperate at all.
- Rodman930, on 12/05/2007, -1/+4How does making it illegal to retroactively raise interest rates cost a fortune?
- AirPortPanic, on 12/05/2007, -6/+18You guys bitching about how these programs will spend goverment money have no clue. I bet you didn't complain about Bush pissing away the Federal budget on the war, and what good that do any of us? What Obama is doing is trying to help the American people by pulling away some of the control the corporations have on us.
- JenadaeXX, on 12/05/2007, -4/+3You must be new here...
- orca94, on 12/05/2007, -6/+3You'll have to excuse them, they're on Ron Paul's dick too hard to wake up.
- bovox, on 12/05/2007, -0/+6"Obama pointed to studies showing that consumers have an average personal debt of more than $8,000 ..."
I'm so glad that I'm an above average individual in every way.- senatorpjt, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2I hope home mortgages don't count.
- floorman56, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2No they don't You buy something with a mortgage that if taken care of will increase in value. No so with that $100 supper you bought with your CC that ...well... turns to crap
- senatorpjt, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2I hope home mortgages don't count.
- orca94, on 12/05/2007, -1/+5A lot of you are just complaining about how this stupid because the people that get into debt with these credit cards are idiots. Well, granted the vast majority of them are idiots. Does that mean we shouldn't be doing anything to stop this from happening? No. It's bad for all of us when a lot of idiots (and there are a lot of idiots out there) get into immense debt on high interest credit cards.
- WilliamDavis, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1I agree with you, but I look at it like this. Credit card companies are scuumy. Politicians are inept.
FTA: "It would ban increasing rates on past debts and prohibit charging interest rates on transaction fees. He would also force additional disclosures by credit card issuers of terms of the agreement."
I don't see a problem with that. People don't realize that CC companies do this, and free markets don't function well at all without information and understanding. Forcing disclosure is, in my opinion, an appropriate role of government, despite the fact that they don't disclose their own scummy practices. - iloveliberals, on 12/05/2007, -0/+3It's bad for all of us when idiots get into debt, true. It's WORSE for all of us when the actions of idiots result in legislation and regulation that limits the choices of everyone else.
What would happen if government were to take a hands-off approach and allowed idiots to get into immense debt? Soon they'd have no money, and no credit, and the idiots who gave them credit would themselves go out of business, and the problem would solve itself.
Don't believe me? Doesn't matter. The real question is, if we're all adults, idiots or not, should we be "allowed" to make decisions for ourselves?
- WilliamDavis, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1I agree with you, but I look at it like this. Credit card companies are scuumy. Politicians are inept.
- thumbtack, on 12/05/2007, -7/+3WHOA a Democrat is going to spend money to help people who can't help themselves and is going to spend money to do it?! I'm flabbergasted! I would rather a Republican get elected and hopefully he can produce more debt than all of his predescors combined, just like the great dictator Bush. I don't know how much something like this would cost but I'm sure as ***** that's it's going to be cheaper than an endless war. It's time to stop writing checks for the things you can't pay for, now If only I could travel back in time and tell this to all the war mongers.
- rockdawg, on 12/05/2007, -0/+7I think his intentions are nice by restricting Credit Companies by enforcing fair standards of Credit and repayment.
(from article- ((He said he opposed a 2005 bankruptcy bill because it protected lenders while "preventing middle-class Americans from getting back on their feet after a crisis — even if they've suffered an illness.")).- Waterrat, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1 it's a good idea,but i doubt he can pull it off...
Below is whatneeds to be fixed as well;
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=8702
- Waterrat, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1 it's a good idea,but i doubt he can pull it off...
- 01000010, on 12/05/2007, -7/+0Are you SURE about his intentions? He sure has taken alot of money from JP Morgan & Chase:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N0000 ...
We need a patriot, not another lackey.- Anzat, on 12/05/2007, -0/+4Arguing that Obama is too corrupt is like arguing that Hillary is too sexy.
- sexydarin, on 12/05/2007, -4/+4Stop running up credit card bills then. Bad behavior should not be subsidized by government. We already have bush subsidizing bad behavior with his taking from the taxpayer aids gifts. Credit card companies are much better than loansharks.
- xeo4ke, on 12/05/2007, -9/+0Obama = gaydard. I mean who the ***** knows a black guy name Obama. Clearly this ***** is entirely as fake as his media gambling mumbo jumbo that he plays with all the time. They guy is like masturbating on media while ejaculating in any other true candidates face. Sick that the majority of the ignoramus US is played on this guy. Shows how many losers watch tv. Most of u digg users cool though. Why? Cause ur smart as ***** and don't follow this crappola fed to the feeble minded like our rentals cause ur on Digg not watching brainwashing tv. If only we where the majority. Only one could think. GO GO GADGET Gen 2012!!
- Anzat, on 12/05/2007, -3/+2Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuck you.
- phphreak, on 12/05/2007, -6/+9Yet another example of someone in government thinking we are all mindless little children that need protection.
- johnhummel, on 12/05/2007, -0/+16Hold on. I see a lot of "Well, people shouldn't buy things they don't need!"
What about racking up a bill for health care? You get sick, you don't have the $5,000 for a procedure that you need - so you charge it. Now we have reports of credit card companies changing your rate from 8 percent to 21 percent if your credit score changes - even if you've been perfectly punctual with your payments.
Does that deserve no attention?
What about auto insurance rates. Nothing to do with credit? It does when your credit score changes and auto companies raise your rates - even if you haven't been in an accident. Does that deserve no attention either?
We have credit companies who changes the rules of the game after people use a credit card. *That* is something we can all agree is *****, and is only there to put people into a cycle of perpetual debt. I've spent several years eradicating every credit card from my life, but there's clearly a process of keeping a person in debt forever not because "Well, they were stupid and greedy", but simply because companies like Discover and Bank of America and others change the rules after the fact to keep people in debt.
That is the terrible thing, and something we should certainly see stopped.- RandomGorilla, on 12/05/2007, -0/+6I agree. My first credit card company, Providian (may they and their children burn in the hottest pits of blackest hell), promised a certain grace period for payments. Six months in I had to have some major car repair done (about $800 worth) when I had no money, so I charged it. Later that month I made my payment on the final day it was due and they didn't bother to process it until the next business day. That put me over my grace period and they jacked up my interest to 24% APR. The bastards intentionally put me over so they could have an excuse to jack up my rates. When I called their 'customer service' line, they made insulting remarks about me and my mother.
It's taken me nearly 6 years to get it below the original balance. And that's only because it was bought out by Washington Mutual who set it back to 7%.- floorman56, on 12/05/2007, -3/+1Later that month I made my payment on the final day it was due
Why not the day before? didn't the small print say when it was due and if it was late that your rates would go up?
I know ...people fall into that trap all the time
- floorman56, on 12/05/2007, -3/+1Later that month I made my payment on the final day it was due
- RandomGorilla, on 12/05/2007, -0/+6I agree. My first credit card company, Providian (may they and their children burn in the hottest pits of blackest hell), promised a certain grace period for payments. Six months in I had to have some major car repair done (about $800 worth) when I had no money, so I charged it. Later that month I made my payment on the final day it was due and they didn't bother to process it until the next business day. That put me over my grace period and they jacked up my interest to 24% APR. The bastards intentionally put me over so they could have an excuse to jack up my rates. When I called their 'customer service' line, they made insulting remarks about me and my mother.
- DrNemo, on 12/05/2007, -3/+4Funny how sound comments in articles discussing what Obama would do (or interfer with) get dugg down. Credit is not free money, you must pay in return of what you get. Credit companies are not predatory, it's their clients that are stupid. If you can't afford paying back what you borrow, don't borrow and you'll not get into debt. Live with what you got and save money where you can. The only organization that is predatory is government. It taxes your wealth without or consent and don't pay you in return.
- nakani, on 12/05/2007, -1/+2Correction: credit card companies are predatory AND their clients are stupid
- Anzat, on 12/05/2007, -3/+9All the libertarian nutjobs here don't seem to understand the difference between "lending" and "predatory lending." Obama's not trying to keep people from having to pay back what they borrowed; in fact, he's big on personal responsibility, which is refreshing from a Democrat. Obama is out to prevent credit card companies from pulling devious stunts. He's fine with them collecting what's fairly owed.
- theodorelogan, on 12/05/2007, -2/+1The only difference is that predatory lending has worse conditions.
Which is what you get when you are a poor credit risk.
It isn't "predatory" if the "prey" agrees to the terms.
- theodorelogan, on 12/05/2007, -2/+1The only difference is that predatory lending has worse conditions.
- Xevec, on 12/05/2007, -2/+4I doubt credit card companies love to make people go into bankruptcy. It doesn't help them at all. It actually makes them lose a lot of potential money. A lot of these proposals he is putting forth isn't ethical at all. Some of you may cry *****, but this violates property rights issues. It is people like us using THEIR money to pay for certain services. I would suggest instead of people crying to the government to do something about it, have ourselves do something about it. Talk with the credit card company in order to do something. I know they want their money in time. It's much like trying to re-pay back college loans. The colleges are more than willing to help you set up any kind of payment plan that you can afford. Even if it is $50 a month.
""Many credit card companies are tricking Americans into agreements they can't afford because that's how they make big profits,""
This quote bothers me. Tricking them? Ok, what about the opposite way around? I mean, my parents at the moment have 0% interest on all of their credit cards. I mean, they are over $10,000 in debt, yet, they still have 0% interest. I mean, my parents are actually exploiting the credit card companies. I personally have 21% interest on my credit card, but luckily, I pay off my bill every month.
I wonder how excatly credit card companies "deceive" customers in piling up massive debt. My suggestion is to READ carefully on the agreements that you sign. Of course, not everything will be there...and you can simply take them to court if they do something that wasn't part of the initial agreement. It's similar to the idea of taking to court a parking garage for damage to your car, despite the ticket that was given to you saying that they aren't responsible for damage(that clause was not part of the agreement when you pushed the button and accepted the ticket).
Overall, I oppose this idea with obama and his regulations of the credit card industry. It will simply make it harder for people to get credit...period. It will cause a decrease in the amount of credit available. That will cause more regulations. I don't know about the bankruptcy laws, but I can't comment, since I don't know much about bankruptcy in a free society.- senatorpjt, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1The only thing that I really see as a problem is credit card companies changing the terms of the loan after the loan occurs. However, all credit cards do it, so you can't make some sort of "free market" argument about choosing one that won't do it.
- nakani, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1Nobody is forcing you to apply for credit and live beyond your means.
- Xevec, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1You mean, introducing new terms after the initial agreement? Some companies do express the right to change their terms at any time. Whether this is truly legal or not..I'm not sure. They might do that to avoid lawsuits. But anyways, all credit cards do it? I find that hard to believe, since my parents still don't pay interest on any of their credit cards...and they don't really get their loans from credit cards(at least, i don't think so)
- GhostyBoy, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1You are right in most things that you say, but I have worked for a credit company. They have insurance on bankruptcy, and in cases where they won't get any money back they can get more cash for the person going bankrupt. So yeah, they don't care.
- senatorpjt, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1The only thing that I really see as a problem is credit card companies changing the terms of the loan after the loan occurs. However, all credit cards do it, so you can't make some sort of "free market" argument about choosing one that won't do it.
- tomis, on 12/05/2007, -1/+4I blame the parents for shielding their kids from the real world instead of teaching them how to budget their money. Then they hit college, no parental supervision and boom, it all goes to hell.
- alex1015, on 12/05/2007, -2/+4god forbid anyone take personal responsibility
- Biskino, on 12/05/2007, -1/+2How about some tools to help people take responsibility?
Consumer credit's important for the economy and it helps a lot of people get a leg up and (in America) cover the cost of medical emergencies. So credit companies should be given as much leeway as possible in developing their range of products BUT...
They should also have to make consumer's credit reports free and easy to obtain (and amend where there are errors)
Ppresent their Ts and Cs in a simple easy to read fashion (I mean so the average 8 year old can understand them)
Provide consumers with accurate examples of how much the loan is actually going to cost
Provide a simple to use, not for profit, industry wide free cost comparison website so consumers can find out what other products are available to them. - LibertyVista, on 12/05/2007, -1/+5If someone borrows money they can't repay, isn't that a predatory borrower ?
- theodorelogan, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1+1,000,000
- burketthumor, on 12/05/2007, -2/+4Some of us are OK with having credit card debt Mr. Obama. I owe $30,000 on my JC Penny card, but I look damn good in my Dungarees!
- nonrate, on 12/05/2007, -1/+2In other words, he's saying, "Your too stupid to make good decisions for yourself. I am smarter than you and should tell the credit card companies what to do." This may sound all sweet and nice, but the fact is it's another example of asking for papa government to make everything better for us. America, let's grow the f** up and take care of this problem ourselves by not signing up for these cards! And if you do, you deserve the debt for being a schmuck
- theodorelogan, on 12/05/2007, -1/+1Yea!
More government programs! That fixes everything! - mosimea, on 12/05/2007, -1/+2It's easy to laugh at this as "Those nanny-state, bleeding heart Democrats are trying to outlaw stupidity". That's not what's happening. People have a 8% rate one day, and the next bill is at 24% with no warning or explanation. This can happen automatically if your FICO score goes down. And your FICO score can go down for things that you wouldn't expect to be a problem, like having "too many" cards, recently opening a new card, getting close to your limit (not even exceeding it).
This is about credit card companies changing the rules after the game is started, such as:
* Changing from a 30 day to a 27 day billing cycle (so you bill is due on earlier day each month -> people end up late on a payment -> they jack the interest rate)
* Jacking your interest rate on your credit card because you were late on your rent, even if you were never late on your credit card bill
On top of this, the rate is retroactive, in that if you borrow, say $5,000 at 6%, and a year later your FICO score goes down and they raise your interest rate to 25%, that rate applies to not only any new borrowing, but to the balance of what you had borrowed previously. If I enter a contract to borrow money at 6%, I'm budgeting to afford payments at that rate. If the bank arbitrarily quadruples the rate, most people will find it near impossible to make payments. - delay, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1The solution to the problem is simple. Loosen personal bankruptcy laws.... problem solved. Once credit cards are easily eliminated through personal bankruptcy, CC companies will be forced to act more responsibly.
- theodorelogan, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1Yeah, that's a great idea.
Let people be even MORE irresponsible.
- theodorelogan, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1Yeah, that's a great idea.
- SilverBlade2k, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1I think a better law would be that a credit card company should suspend an account until the debt has been re-payed with very few allowances like a car, house, and medical expenses.
Credit Card companies allow everyone to rack up enormous debts. They shouldn't be allowed to do that. If a person can't pay the debt within 3 months, the card should be suspended and no more cards should be given out. - Spoomeister, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1And the bills Obama's introduced to the Senate, and got turned into law, on this issue are... what, exactly? If he had no influence in this issue as a Senator, how will it be different as President?
- tojofenton, on 12/05/2007, -1/+0You have GOT to be joking....another big government liberal bailing out the idiots. Pay your bills, deadbeats. Get a second job, whatever. It's not the governments job (or mine) to CYA.
- 89992, on 12/05/2007, -1/+2Our ENTIRE monetary system is based on debt. Eliminating it is simply impossible without collapsing the entire central banking system. Debt is what brings your money into existence to begin with. Obviously a flawed and unsustainable system since it depends on infinite growth. Which is in itself impossible when you have finite resources.
- GhostyBoy, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Thank you.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by