Did you even read far enough into those articles to find out these proposed changes are already law set to take effect in 2010 and this just ups the timetable on the process? The 2010 law passed under the Bush administration mind you.. To blame Obama for this is absurd. Unless you're being sarcastic, you're resembling your blog title a little too much on this issue.

These banks aren't struggling, they've just had huge tons of our cash dumped on them, with all their bad credit moved to us. They've already won twice, so they're pulling the trifecta by intentionally raising fees and rates. People are bitching about the government, but where's the outrage against these gamblers who've already had their chips refunded by the government, given a rigged deck, and now want to use OUR chips instead of theirs? C'mon. As one of the key bailout provisos, which never would have flown with these banks, is that they should have made it easier for us to pay our debt as the economy weakened. As it is, as we're struggling to get by, they're being allowed to tighten the screws. Save your indignation for Chase, Citi, and BankAmerica.

Obviously there are plenty of people who when given the opportunity will make insane judgements about credit. That is why we are in the fix we are in. Loan Shark rates to taxpayers who have already given billions to these banks to keep them afloat is pretty ridiculous. Even the Bushies agreed with that.....eventually.

Do you take contrary postures just to bait? Banks got us into this mess because government didn't protect the public good and left them alone.

So people spending more than they could afford had nothing to do with it??  Or is that the governments fault because the government didn't come in and restrict what they could purchase??

Record defaults, bankruptcies and double-digit unemployment did not occur because millions of Americans threw common sense to the wind. At the time most could afford the purchase of a home and they relied on the assurances and deceptions of finance officers extending the loans. The erosian of regulations made this possible.

Ron, Cat, you guys are both right. People who were uneducated enough to sign an APR were rolling the dice hoping the rate didn't jump. Meanwhile the companies offering the APR knew that as soon as would be prudent they were going to increase the rate. The question is this: Who is at fault, the person being taken advantage of, or the entity who is taking the advantage? Both are to blame, but one way more than the other. The loan companies and banks drew up contracts with the intent to take advantage. That isn't Capitalism, that is extortion. 

About the credit card rates, if you are intelligent as axiom, and capping interest rates doesn't help or benefit you, do they harm you? Even if the result is less credit offered overall, is this a bad thing? Will everyone else be paying a little more to make up the difference? Will it be harder to get a credit card, and is this a bad thing? Will the laws affect bank loans for cars and such? What will this mean for how credit ratings are determined and accepted? Hmm, more questions than answers it seems... I have said it before and I'll say it again: unregulated free markets are great on paper, but they never take into account human nature and its voracious greed. It is the job and role of our government to regulate the economy so that citizens are not being taken advantage of. Increased taxes are not analogous to increased interest rates. Interest rates are for generating profit, taxes are for paying for public services like schools, police, fire, hospitals, military, water and waste treatment, etc.  

My Grandfather never believed in credit - thought it was the worst concept ever.  He never bought something that he couldn't afford right then and there, and if there was some sort of credit program, he'd pay it off within the month.  The only exception of this rule was housing.

If the average American had similar feelings on the subject, we wouldn't be slaves to debt.

It truly amazes me that some people will defend credit card companies. 

Let's make sure the situation is clear:

Credit card companies are given free money through the banks, and are allowed to borrow from the Government at the official rate which is essentially zero. After these measures are passed, AFTER, they then raise rates on cards after getting their own rates cut.

It's sad when the mafia loanshark begins to look good in comparison. Regulation =/= Socialism, but it seems like that when we live in a society that can't follow simple laws like the speed limit.

Verification code: PLICK.

Shwian, when it takes place is irrelevant. My argument is about his attitude toward you and i. Under bush? I don’t know if that’s true, if it is then yes Bush thinks you’re an idiot. I’m not a republican and don’t play party politics, I defend ideas & principles.

Pete, i'm defending liberty, not them. I also defend racists freedom to speak, crazy huh?

FLoridaStateGrad:

>>If the average American had similar feelings on the subject, we wouldn't be slaves to debt.<<

This statement is simply not true.  You ought to investigate the fundamentals of monetary theory, because money is debt.  Any time you are a component of an economy that uses feat currency, you are a 'slave to debt'.  If you somehow choose not to use money, that's fine, but the money in the system is still debt.  All money is loaned into existence in our monetary system.  If you'd like sources of this, I'd be glad to give them.

nick - you're looking too far deep into my comment.  The point is that if we only spend what we know we can afford, there's no reason to rely on credit cards.  In other words.. if you can't pay for something within a month, you shouldn't purchase it.  We waste billions a year in interest alone!

Au Contraire, mon ami.  We do not waste money on interest.  Interest is the product of taking a risk by loaning money.  Without loaning money, we could not produce what we currently have in our society.  Let's think in smaller terms.

Two land owners back in the day before currency.  The Almond farmer (who has a good reputation) needs some water.  So he goes to his next door neighbor (who owns the river) to borrow some water.  But the water could be used by the river owner for other things, so the almond farmer promises to give him a little more in almonds than what the water is worth.  The reason he gives more? The almond farmer promises it in the FUTURE.  The risk that the almond farmer poses in lost water is invested in the prospect that the river owner will get more than it's worth in the future, otherwise he wouldn't loan.  Also, the almond farmer now has an incentive and oppurtunity to produce even more almonds to make up for the extra lost from the 'loan'.

Your principle that people should only buy what they already have money for isn't silly, but it is worse than the alternative.  An interest bearing system gives more incentive and oppurtinuties to produce, and when people produce more, there is more stuff to go around to combat hunger, inconvenience, death, etc.; production of goods and services can help combat these things.

I was speaking of compound interest.  Yes, the original intent of interest is the product of taking a risk, but when someone cannot afford to pay more than the minimum due per month on a credit card, they wind up spending an astronomical amount of money in the long run, and usually can never pull themselves out from under debt.

The point is that too many Americans relyo n credit cards, when they should save them for cases of emergency, or when using credit is beneficial. 

Ax, have you read your latest credit card agreement in full? Does your card holder give you updates on the terms of service several times a year? Do you think interest at more than 30% annually is reasonable? Do find it agreeable to have a hefty fee added to your existing bill if the monthly payment to the card company does not get processed by the due date, even though it may have arrived at its processing center on time?

And do you really believe the President of the United States has an opinion of any of us one way or the other?

Congress is responding to very vocal appeals by consumers who feel abused by current credit and banking tactics that truly fleece America. If you don't understand the dynamics of politics and how this particular proposed legislation came about maybe you should spend a little time looking at the the many back stories leading up to this point. To assert that Obama thinks we're idiots is a very idiotic statement.

Yes I did read it in full. 30% interest reasonable? Depends on the customer, for a customer who is a big risk yes. I dont worry about my interest rate because I pay my card off on time and pay like 10x the minium payment. Agreeable? Depends on the terms.

Vocal appeals by consumers? Again, you cant be charged with a fine that you did not fist agree to get. It's not as if credit card companies go into the streets handing people bills for random charges.

It's an idiotic statement? Ok, why? What did I say that was false? Respond to my argument.

"gain, you cant be charged with a fine that you did not fist agree to get. It's not as if credit card companies go into the streets handing people bills for random charges."

Now there's an idiotic statement.

Many issuers are drawing the ire of the public because of arbitrary changes to terms without prior notice.

Credit cards are the biggest profit maker in commercial banking today.

The USA had anti Usury laws in place for generations, and they worked well.

How soon we forget.

Axiom, these rules were discussed in May of 2008 and became policy in December of 2008, with the take-effect date being July 1, 2010. All the current legislation would do is change the take-effect date to sometime this year or perhaps Jan 1, 2010 (depending on how long the legislative process takes). Regardless of the outcome of the current legislative process, these rules will go into effect next year. So you're about a year late and a dollar short, as the old saying goes, when it comes to complaining about the rules. You had the whole public comment period last summer to express your thoughts to the government, but to complain at this point does very little since the rules will take effect within the next 16 months, it's only a question of when.

Shwaine, so what? I'm attacking an idea, who cares when the idea takes effect?

You're always free to tilt at windmills to your heart's content. Just don't be suprised when people call you on the fact you're a day late and a dollar short... or when people disagree with what windmills you're tilting at. That's just as much their right too.

Shwaine, I dont really know what your point is. The Obama regulations are being talked about now, it was on foxnews today. Why not respond to my argument instead of talking about irrelevent details? What difference does it make when this happens - i'm opposed to it for the reasons I listed.

My point was you can voice your opinion all you want, because that is your right, but don't be suprised if people like me come along and tell you that it doesn't matter what the Obama Adminstration does now because the law already passed under the Bush Administration, because that is my right.

It's also your right to pick your nose, count clouds, and wear a clown nose. All so, what are you talking about this is already law and happend under bush? Why the hell does everything I read on the subject say otherwise.

hwaine, do you support the regulations?

You obiviously are practicing selective reading, along with expressing your right to be rude and crude with the nose picking "joke". Here's a Google search on the 2008 regulations passed under the Bush Administration. Read and be educated:

www.google.com/search

Or don't. That's your right as well.

Axiom - because I'm nice, here's a press release from the Federal Reserve almost a year ago regarding this:

www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/200 80502a.htm

If I were you, I wouldn't point the finger and accuse someone of being "snobby," having a "vapid understanding of economics," etc. if you aren't willing to take a moment to process information before you regurgitate it, which seems to be a habit of yours.  What I usually do is find out all sides of a story before I formulate an opinion on the matter, thereby reducing the amount of time I spend jumping to conclusions.

My words here are meant as constructive criticism, so please do not take them out of context.

The picking your nose comment was to point out that because its your right does not mean its relevent or meaningful.

What have I said that was snobby? Also, what have I said that was false? Give me an example of me being "unwilling to take a moment to process information" - My point is about Obama's support for a bad idea, not what time the idea takes effect.

I'm happy to recieve criticism, which is why I love responding to people like who guys who actually give a damn.

i also find it funny that the news reported that all the banks stock was up, and they all reported profits of millions and billions of dollars

is that legal to record a bailout as a profit?

axiomtek...i like your comparo between bank fees and taxes..you are spot on there guy!!  :applause:

Hey mods...we need some freekin smileys on this board!!!

heres a tweeker smiley a friend of mine made....i call it the oildale special

Axiom - the way in which you addressed your entire original post gave the impression that you were speaking directly about Obama and his Administration, when in reality these ideas were not originally his.  As far as "snobby" - I was referring to your own words.  Maybe you should have titled this "The Federal Government Thinks You're An Idiot," as that would probably be a more accurate supposition.

Well, frankly, a lot of Americans are idiots. I see no problem in having reasonable regulations in regards to financial dealings and the enforcing of contracts. In fact, that's one of the primary functions of good government. I don't see how the proposals affect anybody negatively....except for usurious lenders.

FloridaState, Ive been googling this for too long. Give me an article or link showing that Bush supported these ideas and then we can talk. So far all I've been given is a link that similiar mesures were taken last year.

My own words were snoby? Sorry I guess, but give an example.

Nooneisabovethelaw, "reasonable" regulations is loaded. Did you read my arguement? These mesures hurts the very people it intends to protect, read my article.

Axiom - you stated that Obama had a snobby tone.. that's all I was referring to.

As far as whether Bush supported this or not, the point is that the proposition happened during his Administration, not Obama's.  Therefore, to peg Obama as the sole champion of this issue is incorrect.

As far as your actual argument, you're extremely accusatory, to the point where you assume that you're right and the Government is wrong.  Are you an economic expert?  You're most likely close to my age.. and while I oftentimes come off matter-of-factly, I always provide evidence when possible to back up my arguments.  On the other hand, you use demeaning tone without any real basis for your argument.  How do you know that creating these new parameters on credit card companies won't have a positive impact? The fact is, you don't.

I said he has a snobby tone, and then justified why I think this. The premise behind ideas like social security is that people are too foolish to be trusted to save on their own. Do you dissagree? The idea that people are so foolish that they get "decieved" into paying rates, which they agreed to pay. Do you dissagree? I gave all kinds of reasons why this is based on the idea that we're too stupid to be on our own, we need him to protect us. The friend who is running a race anology explains what I mean.

So my snobby tone is accusing Obama of having a snobby tone? Well, allright. My idea of snobby is a sense of "i'm better than you" or "you're a fool" tone.

I think i'm right and the government is wrong? You better believe it.

I'm not an economic expert, but I still have ideas on economics, and shouldnt my ideas be criticised based on their merit? I'm also not a brain surgeon, but I can tell you with confidence that sticking a knife in your head is bad.

I did provide justification for my statements. Did you even read what I wrote lolz? Lemmy break it up

Conclusion: The idea that to “lower interest rates” all we need to do is make it a law that they are low is so childish and intellectually bankrupt

Premise: Rhetorical thought experiment: If the idea that the way to reduce the price of something is to just make it law worked, why not legislate that all homes be sold no higher than $250? Make it a crime to sell any amount of food for more then $5! The truth is, criminalizing a certain interest rate, or the price of a good comes at a cost.

What I'm doing here is refuting the idea by giving a counter example to refute the priciple underlying Obama's support. The priciple that making things cheaper can be done by legally without any cost.

Premise: The only incentive banks and lenders have to lend is interest – why risk millions otherwise? So by reducing interest rates, we reduce incentive to loan, and reducing incentive to loan means less loaning. All of this translates into the idea that there will be less people out there who are willing to loan, and this translates into less jobs and less competition.

Do you dissagree the incentive for a bank or anyone to loan is interest? If it is, then you agree with the statement "The incentive to loan is interest" - if you agree with that statement then by implication you agree with the statement "If the interest to laon is lowered, the incetive is lowered" - See where i'm going? The truth is I gave arguments in favor of my conclusions, respond to them.

I'm admit that I'm not an expert, but that alone does not make my ideas wrong.

Do you still attend the drinking liberally things? I was thinking of going again, the last time I was invited by a friend.

Florida, here is something I wrote last year that kinda touches on what i'm saying now.

TAXES REDUCE INCENTIVES

1. The primary incentive to do X is money.
2. If the amount of money increases then the incentive increases.
3. If the amount of money is decreased then the incentive decreases.
4. Therefore the amount of money offered corresponds to the incentive.

Example in practice

Imagine I offer you $100 to mow my lawn. You mow my lawn. Imagine I offer you $200 the next day to mow my lawn. Would your incentive to mow my lawn increase? Would you be willing to sacrifice more perhaps? (Not go to the movies for example). Imagine I offer you $20. Would your incentive to mow my lawn decrease?

This seems like a trivial and almost obvious point. The answer to all those questions is yes. In a way it's simply describing supply and demand. Of course if all things obviously true were believed, I would not need to write such things as this.

If you accept the premises above and answered yes to the questions in the thought experiment, then it's fair to say that we've established the amount of money offered corresponds to the incentive to do X.

Tax - A charge against a citizen's person or property or activity for the support of government.

A tax basically is forced 'fee' or 'charge' on something. If I were to pay a 50% tax on $100, I would be left with $50. Taxation therefore reduces the value of whatever is being taxed.

Example in practice

Imagine I offer you $100 to mow my lawn. You mow my lawn. Now imagine I offer you $100 to mow my lawn, and the government recently imposed a tax on mowing lawns, the tax is set to 50%. I offer you $100, but you only receive $50. Would you incentive to mow my lawn change?

Again, all of this is quite obvious. The answer is yes. Economically, there's no difference to you whether or not he offers you $100 or $200, what you will actually receive matters. By the same reasoning, economically it makes no difference to the man how much you get, what he actually pays matters.

If you accept the premises above and answered yes to the questions in the thought experiment, then it's fair to say that we've established if the amount of money offered corresponds to the incentive to do X, and if taxation results in the amount of money being offered always being lower, then it's reasonable to conclude that taxes always reduce the incentive to do X.

In summery

5. The primary incentive to do X is money.
6. If the amount of money increases then the incentive increases.
7. If the amount of money is decreased then the incentive decreases.
8. A tax always reduces the amount of money offered to do X
9. Therefore taxes always reduce the incentive to do X


The implication of this simple principle is that when someone offers to tax a good or service, he is by consequence reducing people's incentive to do that service or consume that good.

Florida, do you have a facebook?

I said he has a snobby tone, and then justified why I think this.

And I'm arguing that Obama wasn't the author of this bill, so to say that He has a snobby tone is inaccurate - you should be implicating the original authors of the bill first and foremost.

The premise behind ideas like social security is that people are too foolish to be trusted to save on their own. Do you dissagree?

Actually, I do disagree.  In order for someone to fully understand a concept, they should first understand the history. Social Security was enacted as part of the New Deal during the Great Depression when more than half of all Senior Citizens had no means of an income.  Part of this was due to the economy, but another part was due to the social changes in America - most notably the urbanization of the country to a point that prior to the 20th century, it was more common for adult children to live either at home or close to home and provide for their parents as they aged.  As urbanization became pronounced during and after the industrial revolution, more young people moved to the cities, away from their elderly parents.  This entire psyche completely changed the family dynamic, as it became less expected that adult children would live with, and thereby support their parents.  

Another major reason for social security at the time was to encourage older workers to retire, thereby opening up the job pool for the younger members of society, thereby lowering unemployment.

During a time when very few people could make enough money to put a meal on the table, much less put money into "savings," I think that social security was an effective way of solving some vital problems of the times.

Now, from a 2009 perspective, I do believe that social security is outdated and needs to be re-worked or eventually phased out, thanks to 401K's, IRA's and the like.  I believe that social security is currently in place not because the government thinks people aren't smart enough to save money, but more because the program has been around for about 80 years.

The idea that people are so foolish that they get "decieved" into paying rates, which they agreed to pay. Do you dissagree?

The whole point of the bill would be to prohibit banks from changing the agreed upon interest rates.  Currently, credit card companies are changing their interest rates at their own leisure without giving consumers factual information as to why the rates are being raised.  This puts many in a difficult position, as anyone who holds a balance must now pay more money in interest, thereby increasing the amount of time they are in debt.

I gave all kinds of reasons why this is based on the idea that we're too stupid to be on our own, we need him to protect us. The friend who is running a race anology explains what I mean.

The fact is, there are people in this world who will take advantage whenever they can.  You're so concerned with individualism and liberty that you fail to realize that there are millions of Americans who have been taken advantage of, and now are in financial disaster.

So my snobby tone is accusing Obama of having a snobby tone? Well, allright. My idea of snobby is a sense of "i'm better than you" or "you're a fool" tone.

Once again.. I didn't say you had a snobby tone.. though I'm beginning to think you do, in a way.

I think i'm right and the government is wrong? You better believe it.

And why do you think anyone is going to believe you?  What experiences do you have that set you apart from the rest of those of us?  How do you suddenly have more knowledge?  Have you been around the block, so to speak?

I'm not an economic expert, but I still have ideas on economics, and shouldnt my ideas be criticised based on their merit? I'm also not a brain surgeon, but I can tell you with confidence that sticking a knife in your head is bad.

You have ideas, but that doesn't mean they're correct or incorrect.  The way you speak your ideas gives the impression that you know what you're talking about - I'm calling your bluff and stating that you might have a lot of basic knowledge, but you oftentimes loose sight of reality.  Your arguments read like something from a textbook, and not from an actual human perspective.

Actually, I'd call it an attempt at a straw man.

Do you dissagree the incentive for a bank or anyone to loan is interest? If it is, then you agree with the statement "The incentive to loan is interest" - if you agree with that statement then by implication you agree with the statement "If the interest to laon is lowered, the incetive is lowered" - See where i'm going? The truth is I gave arguments in favor of my conclusions, respond to them.

Once again, you look at things from a formulaic perspective.  From what  I see, you believe everything to be black or white, with no gray area.

The incentive for a bank is to make money, first and foremost.  Therefore, a bank will do whatever it takes to make money.  Interest is one of the key ways that they make money, but it is not the only way (i.e. late fees, annual fees, start-up fees, overdraft fees, etc.).  The incentive of the bank to lend money will not go down because they are forced to loan less - because they'll still be making money, just less money.  At that point, they'll either do one of two things - find a way to internally cut costs, or they'll raise their other fees.  Because of the way our economic system works, people will still be demanding credit (business loans, auto loans, mortgages, etc.).

Stop looking at things as A+B=C, and start looking at things from a different perspective.  Then you'll begin to understand what I and others have been saying all along.  Remember our discussion at Drinking Liberally?  It's all one in the same, because you refused to look at the gray area then, and you refuse to look at it now.

I'm admit that I'm not an expert, but that alone does not make my ideas wrong.

It doesn't make your ideas right either.

Do you still attend the drinking liberally things? I was thinking of going again, the last time I was invited by a friend.

I actually run the meetings now.. I'll shoot you a message later today w/ my facebook info.

Florida, he didn’t not author the bill, but the reasons he gives as to why he supports it I find snobby. You don’t need to actually be the author of a bill to have snobby reasons to support it.

You agree that one of the reasons behind social security is that people cant be trusted on their own, that’s my point and why I gave SS as an example. The history of an idea is important but not vital when it comes to debating whether or not it’s a good idea or not. I think the idea that 9/11 was an inside job is silly, and I have no idea who first came up with it.

Credit card companies are charging interest rates “at their own leisure” yes, and they can do this because the contract must have said “We reserve the right to alter your interest rate etc etc” – If you agreed on a fixed rate, and they changed it, you can sue them for fraud. Do you object with people’s fees going up or down? What about taxes? California is trying to raise all kinds of taxes for the same reason the banks are, why isn’t obama running around talking about “protecting struggling” consumers?

I’ve never claimed to have a PHD in anything. Again, challenge my ideas not me. Your response sounds a little like saying “Well, you’re not an expert so you’re wrong”

I don’t know what it means to say my blogs sound like a textbook.

A strawman? One of the reasons behind “cutting interest rates” or “legally mandating lower rates” is to “help” people. How is it a strawman to say he’s doing this for the reasons he gave as to why he’s doing it?

Formulate perspective? What does that mean? Do you agree the only incentive for banks to loan is interest? Why not answer my questions?

Yes, banks incentive is to make money. So when you legally reduce the amount of money they can make, you are reducing their incentive – right?

I’m happy to look at things from a “different perspective” but you need to give me a perspective to look at. So far all you’ve really said is ‘You’re not an expert, you sound like a textbook, you think things are black and white, and you need to think of different perspectives” – None of these explains why anything I said was false.

Cool, yeah I don’t go to drinking liberally because I’m a libertarian and figured I wasn’t welcome or something. When is the next one?

 You agree that one of the reasons behind social security is that people cant be trusted on their own, that’s my point and why I gave SS as an example. The history of an idea is important but not vital when it comes to debating whether or not it’s a good idea or not.

In this case, the history of social security is essential to understanding the thought behind it.  You claim that social security is in place because people cannot be trusted on their own - I claim that social security was enacted because of circumstance - increased urbanization coupled with the Great Depression.  If we want to liken things to today's world, why don't we look at the millions of people who did save money and lost it after the fall of the banks in the fall.  I know people who've lost the vast majority of their life savings due to the market free-fall.  Without social security, some of these people would most likely be out on the streets right now.  Therefore, I look at social security as a "security blanket" which ensures that even in times of economic volatility, the Government has the programs in place to ensure that you aren't going to starve to death.

So where you see social security as the government's distrust of it's own people, I see as a failsafe for times of economic crisis.  Historically, that was the entire point of social security to begin with, and to ignore this reasoning is to completely disregard the intended purpose. 

I think the idea that 9/11 was an inside job is silly, and I have no idea who first came up with it.

Ok.. and what does that have to do with our discussion? Nothing.

Credit card companies are charging interest rates “at their own leisure” yes, and they can do this because the contract must have said “We reserve the right to alter your interest rate etc etc” – If you agreed on a fixed rate, and they changed it, you can sue them for fraud. Do you object with people’s fees going up or down?

I understand where you are coming from, but your argument once again falls upon distinct black/white interpretations.  I think this is where your lack of experience comes into play.  We might be close to the same age (I'm 26..), but I have a feeling you and I lead very different lives.  If I'm not mistaken, you're single with obligations only to yourself.  You seem to be fiscally responsible, which is excellent.  On the other hand, I'm married and due to personal reasons beyond our control, I'm pretty much the sole provider of the household.  I work for a company with excellent compensation and benefits, but due to many issues beyond our control, we're in debt.  We've been working to pay down our debt, and in most cases, we've suceeded.  However, because of the current situation, some creditors have decided to change the way they do business - increasing rates, etc.  If credit card companies continue to raise the fees, there's a distinct possibility that we would not be able to afford to pay the minimum due.  Even now, when I'm paying more than our monthly minimums, we still are charged normal interest, which is understandable, but imagine how much longer it will take to pay off a debt when rates continue to increase?

This is what I speak about when I'm talking about the human element.  There are millions of Americans who attempt to do the responsible thing, but because of current practices in the lending environment, it can become impossible to move out from under debt.  Is it these people's fault that they're experiencing problems? Oftentimes no.  So, we can either allow the "free market" to continue raising rates and fees, thereby having no understanding or compassion for the many Americans who are trying to make ends meet, or we can begin to regulate things a bit to ensure that all Americans have the ability to pay their debts in full and hopefully move on.

Unfortunately, Credit has become a central part of how our society operates, and therefore most Americans are stuck with it.

What about taxes? California is trying to raise all kinds of taxes for the same reason the banks are, why isn’t obama running around talking about “protecting struggling” consumers?

I don't think you can really compare taxes to bank rates and interest.  Either way, Obama is trying to "protect stuggling consumers" by cutting income tax for the majority of Americans.  As it pertains to our state, I don't know what the answer is, partially because I've only been a resident here for less than 3 years - so I'm not as up to speed on why the State is so far in debt.

I’ve never claimed to have a PHD in anything. Again, challenge my ideas not me. Your response sounds a little like saying “Well, you’re not an expert so you’re wrong”

I am challenging your ideas, but I'm also challenging your tone.  When you claim that someone (in this case, Obama) has a "vapid understanding of economics," that infers that you must know more than Obama or his Administration regarding the subject.  You might have some ideas that counter the current status quo, but you haven't really backed up your ideas with proven fact - you only speak of theoretical instances, which once again are black & white and do not take into account the actual circumstances.

I don’t know what it means to say my blogs sound like a textbook.

I'll try and explain this one a bit better than I have in the past: the way in which you write comes from a very  logical perspective.  For example, Nietzsche once said, "Logic, too, also rests on assumptions that do not correspond to anything in the real world."  

In other words, your arguments are well thought out and on paper make sense, but when you put such arguments into real life situations, they fall flat because they do not take into account all of the variables of reality.  Your perception does not always equal reality.

A strawman? One of the reasons behind “cutting interest rates” or “legally mandating lower rates” is to “help” people. How is it a strawman to say he’s doing this for the reasons he gave as to why he’s doing it?

You attempted to ask questions regarding why we don't cap the price on homes or food, which is a straw man because the price of a home or food is not on the same level as how much a credit card can raise their rates.  If you purchase a home, it's based upon what you believe the value of that home is.  If the seller is asking for what you consider too high of a price, you either pass on the home or you make a counter offer.  Either way, a fixed purchase price is agreed to.

As far as food, the price of food is normally directly related to supply and demand.  If you cannot afford the price of a steak, you'll purchase ground chuck instead.  You might be uspet because you cannot afford a steak, but you still have the ability to make the decision on how much you pay for food by what kind of food you choose (much like a house).  In other words, not all food items, and not all houses, are equal.

Whereas you have a choice in which home you purchase, or what kind of food you buy, sometimes we do not have a free decision in borrowing money.  For example - lets say you have a good job with excellent health insurance, you have no debt and you have money in savings.  Unfortunately, you're diagnosed with cancer, and you must undergo treatment.  Insurance decides to only cover a portion of your expenses, and you go through your savings rather quickly, and must begin to rely on credit or loans to sustain yourself.  You are therefore forced into borrowing money that you'd otherwise not have, and thanks to current practices, this bankrupts you.

Formulate perspective? What does that mean? Do you agree the only incentive for banks to loan is interest? Why not answer my questions?

I answered your question - I said that the incentive of the bank was to make money.  Your idea that the only incentive for banks to loan is interest is a misconception.  Interest is only a portion of how a bank makes money, therefore to say that interest is the only incentive is wrong.

Yes, banks incentive is to make money. So when you legally reduce the amount of money they can make, you are reducing their incentive – right?

No - because, reducing how much interest a bank can charge does not mean that the bank's incentive to make money is reduced - it only means they'll attempt to recover those losses in another way, as I discussed before - either they would cut costs internally, or raise other fees which they already charge to make money.    There will still be a demand for credit.  

Look at it this way - you open up a business building and selling garage doors.  2 years into your business, the price of steel goes up.  Does that reduce your incentive to build and sell garage doors? For any normal businessperson, that answer would be no.  Instead, you would adapt to the change in the market and either reduce your overhead or increase your price to your customers.  Chances are, if you're a good businessman, you'll still be able to make money because there is still a demand for what you produce.

Do me a favor - provide me with proof where a company lost incentive to do business because they were forced to comply with price caps.  The reality is that a price cap most often will help to set a standard expectation of what a consumer will pay, and it also forces companies to become more efficient.

I’m happy to look at things from a “different perspective” but you need to give me a perspective to look at.

Honestly, I've been trying to give you a different perspective, but I don't think you've really been open to it.

So far all you’ve really said is ‘You’re not an expert, you sound like a textbook, you think things are black and white, and you need to think of different perspectives” – None of these explains why anything I said was false.

I've most certainly explained why your ideas aren't necissarily accurate - hopefully this round of my answers will help you better understand what I mean.

Cool, yeah I don’t go to drinking liberally because I’m a libertarian and figured I wasn’t welcome or something. When is the next one?

We welcome anyone to our meetings, and we are always looking for good conversation.  While we do tend to lean left of center, we have had people of all political ideologies involved.  I'm personally Independant and have no part affiliation - there are also Democrats, Green Party, maybe even the occasional Libertarian.. and once in a while a few Republicans have been known to show up.

You made some really good points, when I get back home (i'm out of town on a friends computer) ill respond.

Maybe we should just resume this at the next drinking lib

axiomtek:  Here's an expression you've probably heard over and over, in one form or another:  Run for the hills if somebody comes to your door and says, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."

Your comments are compounded with common sense.  (Completely off-topic, as I've said before elsewhere, I love alliteration, and alliterative sounds.)

Bitterness is unbecoming of you, Alicen.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

If it passed in 2008, why was it debated and voted on TODAY

Didn't we already cover this? Because what came out in 2008 doesn't take effect until July 1st, 2010 and what is being debated now will go into effect sooner. That's the "fun" of our governmental process. Even if all you want to do is change the effective date of existing rules, you have to vote again on it. You can't just change dates willy-nilly... As an example, look up the debates that came out about changing the date of the broadcast digital TV transition.