Senate Rejects a 15% Ceiling on Credit Card Interest Rates

[JRScott]

The erosion of states rights is not the issue here. To the contrary, these companies are using our outdated inefficient 'individual' states rights against us. They establish operations in Delaware style states, only to exploit their weak (even corrupt) laws, only to wreck havoc on consumers.

The irony is that consumers living overseas, under the exact federal system some are against, have much greater protection against corporations than we have here. Take the UK for example, where banking and the credit industry is highly regulated. I even posted an article a while back which shows how it is illegal and considered harassment for a creditor to call you again and again. Contacting your neighbors, brothers, sister, coworkers and parents is illegal there.

The problem I was alluding to is that Senators are now elected by popular vote. The reason that is troubling and I know many might not agree is the fact that most Senator's acquire as much as 95% of their war chests from out of state interests, something they couldn't do before the current laws. At the very least in this instance we should require U. S. Senators and U. S. Representatives to raise funds solely from their states and districts respectively. It is what has corrupted our system so badly.

Regulation of banks since it crosses state borders and involves monetary policy actually is a Federal right, not a State one just to be clear.

[JRScott]

Half our politicians are self serving dirtbags anyway. Yes, regardless of the moronic party affiliation symbol next to their name.

My favorite president was Andrew Jackson. While he had many faults, he was someone who dared to take on these crooked banks. He was against national banks as he felt:

* It concentrated the nation's financial strength in a single institution.
* It exposed the government to control by foreign interests.
* It served mainly to make the rich richer.
* It exercised too much control over members of Congress.
* It favored northeastern states over southern and western states.

Looks like his predictions from 1830 proved to be valid.

Also the last president in which the United States had no debt.

That's really what we need is a strong President.

Dissolving the Federal Reserve Bank would solve some of our problems after all we borrow the money from them.....oh and make sure we get the other half of our gold back that is deposited in their bank.....

[banca rotta]

Also the last president in which the United States had no debt.

That's really what we need is a strong President.

Dissolving the Federal Reserve Bank would solve some of our problems after all we borrow the money from them.....oh and make sure we get the other half of our gold back that is deposited in their bank.....

Yes it would but we do need a good system that makes sense. There isn't enough gold in the world to use as a standard.

After hearing all the criticism on this forum about the fed I looked into their history and really wonder if we are better off with them or without them. They were supposed to avoid the very issue that caused the great depression and they sat on the sidelines.

I also don't like that they are owned by the big banks. Take a look at who owns them. It's not the govt like I used to think. I heard someone say "they are as federal as federal express".

[shabam]

The large banks are proficient at manipulating (buying) congress and exploiting the loopholes, that is, by operating in one state yet serving credit to others everywhere else; in states that have pro creditor rules. A great deal of what our banks can get away with would not fly in other modern nations. In countries where their federal government actually looks out for their people and promotes honest and equitable growth. As I have said before, nothing wrong with making money as long as everyone gets a fair shot. What I have a problem with is a stockholder earning dividends for doing nothing, while a worker in a particular business gets paid a disgraceful minimum wage working eight to ten hours a day. And I say this as a right wing conservative.

What irritates me the most is that when it comes to filing for bk, the creditor actually has a say (can object) and file an adversary proceeding. Whereas in the UK, for example, the law looks at unsecured debt as: the creditor willing offered the line of credit, did not ask for any security and for a decent time derived a hefty profit from it. Therefore, they have no recourse if the person cannot pay. Unless an individual committed undeniable fraud, then the creditor has no leg to stand on period.

The credit industry gets away with plenty that would be considered illegal, harassment, extortion and so on in any other industry. Even under criminal law, you are innocent until (without a doubt) proven guilty. When it comes to credit, you are guilty until proven innocent. When they are forcing you to pay 29.99% on a debt, $39 late fee, $14.95 next day payment fee, 4% transfer fee then that is obviously acceptable behavior. I thought we no longer had servitude in this country. I guess not. Though, what is really happening is that the rich and the banks are angry they cannot exploit you any longer. So they kick and scream murder about it.

[JRScott]

The Federal Reserve Bank has never been owned by the government, so yes it is government as much as Federal Express .

Here is some good news though:

FAST FACTS: The Credit Card Overhaul Bill
The following is a look at legislation expected to be sent to the president by week's end, as well as pending Federal Reserve regulations.

SENATE BILL

Takes effect nine months after enactment, except for requirement of notice before interest rates are increased, which goes into effect in 90 days.

-- Includes unrelated provision that would allow people to carry loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

-- Bans double-cycle billing, which eliminates the interest-free period for consumers who move from paying the full balance monthly to carrying a balance.

-- Prohibits retroactive rate increases unless the cardholder is at least 60 days behind in paying the bill. If a person does fall behind and the rate on past buys is increased, lenders must restore the lower rate after six months if the cardholder has paid monthly bills on time.

-- Requires lenders to post their credit card agreements on the Internet.

-- Requires that customers receive 45 days notice before rates are increased.

-- Requires anyone under 21 to prove that they can repay the money before being given a card, or have a parent or guardian promise to pay off their debt if they default.

-- Prohibits over-the-limit fees unless a cardholder elects to be allowed to go over a limit.

-- Requires lenders to say how much time it would take and how much money in interest would be paid if only the minimum monthly payments are made.

--Requires that gift cards remain valid for five years.

--Bans "pay-to-pay" fees, which are charged when someone pays the bill by phone or on the Internet.

FEDERAL RESERVE REGULATIONS

Take effect in July 2010.

-- Require banks to give customers a reasonable time, such as 21 days, to pay the bill before it is considered late.

-- Require banks to give customers 45 days notice before raising interest rates on new purchases, even if the customer is late or delinquent in paying the account.

-- Prohibit, in most cases, retroactive rate increases. Does not include a provision that would require lenders to reduce the rate after six months if the person pays on time.

-- Prohibit double-cycle billing.

-- Limit excessive fees charged on subprime credit cards, which are marketed to people with bad credit.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/20/fast-facts-credit-card-overhaul/?test=latestnews