Trump proposes cap on credit card interest at 10% (for a year)

[Winston]

Trump caps credit card interest at 10% (for a year)​

Price controls?
Isn't that "Socialism"?

Only when a Democrat does it.

Interest rates on credit cards were capped by state usury laws until the middle to late 70's.

 

[struth]

Mortgage rates have barely budged, and he doesn't have the authority to change credit card rates. I don't know anything about corpses or muslims though.

He has the bull pulpit, he’s calling for the cut, and putting pressure on the companies to do it. He’s not owned by them like xiden was

Mortgage rate have dropped sharply as of Friday, to the lowest in over three years

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/mortgage-rates-drop-below-6-for-the-first-time-in-3-years-as-trump-floats-purchase-of-mortgage-bonds-2636b0d7?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqceUuV8F-4yqu9nTQRmCpVwzcaRWLVpvu0G5QLD5qZ9DjqY90pcXCGD&gaa_ts=6962265c&gaa_sig=XMnv8Oymgi5NsbXyvzUesFHQHzWw71pOKIc7LMb3iZYcBEiaUcFrFtZsGLdUN9GeN0NjlPrQRijOIEPNdYJXJA%3D%3D

It’s all about affordability and undoing the legacy of xiden and the dems

 

[Winston]

This thread is a hoot. Like I said, AOC introduced a bill in March of last year limiting credit card interest rates to ten percent, it is not temporary. That on the heels of a temporary limit of ten percent, until 2031, proposed in a bill by Bernie Sanders last January. Both are languishing in committee.

But the Trump nuts fawn over Trump's every "post". Oh, he is so creative, he is so wonderful. He works for the working man. Democrats sure didn't do anything about it.

Trump needs to hold a press conference with Sanders on one side and AOC on the other and demand those bills get out of committee and come up for a vote, amendments to be allowed. Can you see the heads on the right explode? But chance that happens is slim to none and Slim left town.

 

[Winston]

He has the bull pulpit, he’s calling for the cut, and putting pressure on the companies to do it. He’s not owned by them like xiden was

Mortgage rate have dropped sharply as of Friday, to the lowest in over three years

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/mortgage-rates-drop-below-6-for-the-first-time-in-3-years-as-trump-floats-purchase-of-mortgage-bonds-2636b0d7?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqceUuV8F-4yqu9nTQRmCpVwzcaRWLVpvu0G5QLD5qZ9DjqY90pcXCGD&gaa_ts=6962265c&gaa_sig=XMnv8Oymgi5NsbXyvzUesFHQHzWw71pOKIc7LMb3iZYcBEiaUcFrFtZsGLdUN9GeN0NjlPrQRijOIEPNdYJXJA%3D%3D

It’s all about affordability and undoing the legacy of xiden and the dems

This is all about posturing. It ain't going to happen. Those bills will never come out of committee. French Hill in the House, Tim Scott in the Senate. Who do you think are their biggest contributors?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Interest rates on credit cards were capped by state usury laws until the middle to late 70's.

What was left of usury laws were largely gutted between 1978 and 1982. First, the Supreme Court's notorious Marquette decision enabled national banks to export the usury cap of their home state to other states.
Then states followed up with parity laws to protect their own lenders and compete for bank chartering.
The FHA rate cap was removed in the early 1980s (I think) and the Depository Institutions and Monetary Control Act of 1980 and the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act of 1982 got rid of a most of the remaining state usury and associated laws at least as applied to mortgage lending.

 

[struth]

This is all about posturing. It ain't going to happen. Those bills will never come out of committee. French Hill in the House, Tim Scott in the Senate. Who do you think are their biggest contributors?

Maybe they won’t, doesn’t mean the president can’t use the bully pulpit to still pressure the companies to do it on their own.

With that said, I personally don’t care if the do. I have little empathy for people that don’t realize how much interest their card carries let alone run up the debt on it and not pay it off monthly

 

[Winston]

What was left of usury laws were largely gutted between 1978 and 1982. First, the Supreme Court's notorious Marquette decision enabled national banks to export the usury cap of their home state to other states.
Then states followed up with parity laws to protect their own lenders and compete for bank chartering.
The FHA rate cap was removed in the early 1980s (I think) and the Depository Institutions and Monetary Control Act of 1980 and the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act of 1982 got rid of a most of the remaining state usury and associated laws at least as applied to mortgage lending.

When I was a kid I lived in this, well obviously a quite "communist", tiny little mill town. For years, the town had one bank. It was all that was allowed, the state regulated that industry. I even remember going to a public hearing with Dad when a new bank was proposed, and was approved. Opened a bank account there, still have it, over 50 years old, albeit I am probably now in like my tenth different bank as mergers and acquisitions ate up the little guys.

But I remember the fallout from the Marguette decision well. And to this very day, that decision was bad public policy. But it really was a watershed moment, when the government no longer worked for the people, instead, now seeking to represent corporations. And you can look at the data, read the charts. GDP growth, wage growth, the slopes decline after the mid 70's, even before Reagan. Today, the financial industry extorts three times as much money from the American public as they did prior to Marquette decision with no measurable increase in efficiency. Of course that has an impact on GDP.

Ironically, this proposal, even if adopted, will have little impact on GDP. First, as indicated in this thread, many people pay off credit cards each month and do not carry a balance. But for those that do, well it is just a cut in interest rates charged. Sure, maybe they can pay the balance off sooner, but that hardly puts money in their pocket today.

 

[struth]

What was left of usury laws were largely gutted between 1978 and 1982. First, the Supreme Court's notorious Marquette decision enabled national banks to export the usury cap of their home state to other states.
Then states followed up with parity laws to protect their own lenders and compete for bank chartering.
The FHA rate cap was removed in the early 1980s (I think) and the Depository Institutions and Monetary Control Act of 1980 and the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act of 1982 got rid of a most of the remaining state usury and associated laws at least as applied to mortgage lending.

That opinion didn’t gut usury laws. It just decided which states a national bank could charge all their customers…and that is, their home state

And this thread is about credit cards not mortgages so not sure why you are citing the AMTPA

 

[struth]

When I was a kid I lived in this, well obviously a quite "communist", tiny little mill town. For years, the town had one bank. It was all that was allowed, the state regulated that industry. I even remember going to a public hearing with Dad when a new bank was proposed, and was approved. Opened a bank account there, still have it, over 50 years old, albeit I am probably now in like my tenth different bank as mergers and acquisitions ate up the little guys.

But I remember the fallout from the Marguette decision well. And to this very day, that decision was bad public policy. But it really was a watershed moment, when the government no longer worked for the people, instead, now seeking to represent corporations. And you can look at the data, read the charts. GDP growth, wage growth, the slopes decline after the mid 70's, even before Reagan. Today, the financial industry extorts three times as much money from the American public as they did prior to Marquette decision with no measurable increase in efficiency. Of course that has an impact on GDP.

Ironically, this proposal, even if adopted, will have little impact on GDP. First, as indicated in this thread, many people pay off credit cards each month and do not carry a balance. But for those that do, well it is just a cut in interest rates charged. Sure, maybe they can pay the balance off sooner, but that hardly puts money in their pocket today.

Why was in and decision?

 

[Winston]

Maybe they won’t, doesn’t mean the president can’t use the bully pulpit to still pressure the companies to do it on their own.

With that said, I personally don’t care if the do. I have little empathy for people that don’t realize how much interest their card carries let alone run up the debt on it and not pay it off monthly

For someone that works a regular job, I agree. No business carrying a balance on a credit card. But for business owners, self-employed, they are vital. I like what my oldest son told his brother. Financially, he is a beast. Closed on his house a few days before he walked across the stage to get his diploma. Paid off his student loans in the first year. He uses nothing but credit cards, pays the balance off each month. Has a company card, gets to keep all the rewards and miles. Since he does a lot of international travel, business class always, he builds up an insane amount of rewards and miles.

So, at least once a month he is at the beach, in the mountains, taking a quick vacation, all paid for with rewards. He tells his brother, I get these rewards because of people like you, that carry a balance and pay interest, thanks.

 

[Winston]

Why was in and decision?

The laws of the banks home state. Like I said, I remember it well. States fell over each other to eliminate their usury restrictions and attract "banks" to their state. Incorporate in Delaware, that is when it all started. Ironically, I think South Dakota was second. So sad, life expectancy in some areas of South Dakota is lower than western Africa.

 

[struth]

For someone that works a regular job, I agree. No business carrying a balance on a credit card. But for business owners, self-employed, they are vital. I like what my oldest son told his brother. Financially, he is a beast. Closed on his house a few days before he walked across the stage to get his diploma. Paid off his student loans in the first year. He uses nothing but credit cards, pays the balance off each month. Has a company card, gets to keep all the rewards and miles. Since he does a lot of international travel, business class always, he builds up an insane amount of rewards and miles.

So, at least once a month he is at the beach, in the mountains, taking a quick vacation, all paid for with rewards. He tells his brother, I get these rewards because of people like you, that carry a balance and pay interest, thanks.

I am talking about individuals. Businesses should also pay their balance, and bills monthly a well..but the vast majority of the issue is individuals

 

[struth]

The laws of the banks home state. Like I said, I remember it well. States fell over each other to eliminate their usury restrictions and attract "banks" to their state. Incorporate in Delaware, that is when it all started. Ironically, I think South Dakota was second. So sad, life expectancy in some areas of South Dakota is lower than western Africa.

How’s that a bad decision?

Delaware is favored for laws of incorporation, and has been for well before the 70s because of delawares well organized and structure incorporation laws that date back to the 1800s

Banks are delegate incorporations, they are chartered by individual states. Banking law and corporate law are two different things

 

[Winston]

I am talking about individuals. Businesses should also pay their balance, and bills monthly a well..but the vast majority of the issue is individuals

First, businesses need flexibility. Almost every successful business has a line of credit standing at the ready. I mean damn, ever run a farm? Contractors, you got to buy supplies, you ain't been paid yet.

Here is a better proposal. No cap on interest rates. But, pay more than the minimum, pay more than what you charged that month, reduce your balance, then get credit. All interest charged for the month is removed.

 

[Mac1958]

Unsolicited control, on an entirely impulsive and random basis, over the day to day functions of American businesses, by one person.

We're now going down that road. In multiple sectors.

Students of history know what the word for that is. Ignorant rubes do not.

 

[Winston]

How’s that a bad decision?

Delaware is favored for laws of incorporation, and has been for well before the 70s because of delawares well organized and structure incorporation laws that date back to the 1800s

Banks are delegate incorporations, they are chartered by individual states. Banking law and corporate law are two different things

Here is the thing. If banks are chartered by individual states should they not be subject to each state's regulations? I mean we are on the cusp of repeating the same mistake, part of the Republican proposal to replace the ACA. Currently, insurance companies are charted by each individual state. And every insurance company has to abide by the regulations of the State they are operating in, regardless of the State that chartered them. Republicans want to make insurance companies like financial companies, the only regulations that apply or those of the State of domicile. A recipe for disaster.

 

[struth]

First, businesses need flexibility. Almost every successful business has a line of credit standing at the ready. I mean damn, ever run a farm? Contractors, you got to buy supplies, you ain't been paid yet.

Here is a better proposal. No cap on interest rates. But, pay more than the minimum, pay more than what you charged that month, reduce your balance, then get credit. All interest charged for the month is removed.

A line of credit isn’t the same as a credit card

You are discussing something completely different then what the topic is

Lines of credit offer way better interest rates then credit cards

 

[struth]

Here is the thing. If banks are chartered by individual states should they not be subject to each state's regulations? I mean we are on the cusp of repeating the same mistake, part of the Republican proposal to replace the ACA. Currently, insurance companies are charted by each individual state. And every insurance company has to abide by the regulations of the State they are operating in, regardless of the State that chartered them. Republicans want to make insurance companies like financial companies, the only regulations that apply or those of the State of domicile. A recipe for disaster.

As far as usary laws they should be subject to the state they are chartered in

If you don’t want to do business with that bank because they can charge higher rates don’t

If you mean the gop wants insurance companies to be more competitive and a person from Conn can get rates that might be lower out of Va, then you are right

It’s weird you think making a market larger is a bad thing and less choice is good

 

[JoeB131]

Exactly what does calling for mean? Without any kind of presidential order, he's just saying he wants congress to pass a new law limiting interest. What kind of idiot would think that might happen?

Exactly. When Congress passed a law under Obama limiting predatory behavior by the Credit Card Companies, Republicans fought that tooth and nail.

Why do you think they'll go along with it now?

 

[Darlo kittu]

Exactly. When Congress passed a law under Obama limiting predatory behavior by the Credit Card Companies, Republicans fought that tooth and nail.

Why do you think they'll go along with it now?

That "predatory lending" bill was pure Obozo BS

I spent 16 years in the mortgage industry and the Dems were outraged over the amount of interest buyers paid over the life of a mortgage.

Give me a break.