EVERY Credit Card...

Should have their rates cut to 4.99% fixed. No serious late fees or rate jacking.

Call it an economic stimulus.

Oh, and student loan debt should be forgiven or reduced... especially if unemployed.




Just a couple of things kickin' around in my brain.



:P

This would quickly put more money in the pockets of working people. Unfortunately, investors have threatened to sue if mortgage companies re-work mortgages to give working people a break.

on Mortgage rates. Say 2.99% or dare i hope... 2%.

:)

by legislation. Nothing stopping Congress from ordering a freeze on mortgage and credit card old balance interest rates.

(But, I could be wrong about that and state law might take precedence)

The credit card companies all act across state lines, so Congress has the right to regulate.

interest rates and terms are regulated by the states the issuer is incorporated in, regardless of where the cards are sold.

The Hubbard-Mayer plan calls for the government to revive the moribund housing market by providing just about everybody with access to a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with a 4.5 percent interest rate. That’s almost a full percentage point lower than the average national rate of 5.47 percent currently.

Buyers could borrow as much as 95 percent of the value of the home they purchase. The plan might extend to those with existing mortgages, allowing them to refinance and get the same terms. When either type of deal is complete, the lender will place the loan with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=a.YJmSfnHD9o

Damn cc companies are forcing people into default.

But a lot of people bought a lot of unneccesary crap knowing full well they'd pay ridiculous interest on it. I am not for blanket redution of rates. A lot of plasma TV's and plastic crap got bought that people could clearly live without.

No free pass for greedy materialism fueled by stupidity.

In other cases, where CC's were used to buy food or medical care or other gotta-have items, well that's different. Those folks were merely surving and should get a break. Those who were morons with their credit don't deserve the same break as those who were trying to survive.

Julie

I think the people that are truly living beyond their means will not really benefit from reducing the interest on things they already can't afford!

They'll get their due. In the meantime, a little help for the struggling who just don't want to get crippled by the cycle of DEBT that our "systems" foster would be appreciated.

it doesn't matter what was purchased with them. 30% interest is ridiculous.

x(

I worked at Citigroup way back when they were starting to implement these things, and it was always agreed that this would be a SERVICE to bank customers and it should be FREE.

It STILL should be FREE. We are depositing money to allow the banks the limited use of that money. The customer should NOT be charged to get his own money back.

In twenty years of banking I've never paid a bank ATM fee.

:hide:

it might even be illegal or impossible to implement. But i'd love to see it considered.

x(

Sounds good to me. I wouldn't want mine totally forgiven...just reduced...I haven't started paying them yet, as I'm still in school.

but- that's just not how it works.

We can give the banks $700 billion with no strings though...
I'm not worried, I knew what I was getting into when I took out the loans. It'd still be nice.

that Ronald Reagan did away with.

I don't know what anyone ever saw in that sorry bastard.

I never knew there was such a thing.

As for Reagan... it was the hair. Too damn perfect.

Including interest on car loans. Yup. Strange, but true.

Reagan did away with that to shift the tax burden to you and me and off of his wealthy trickle-down buddies, who didn't need credit for anything.

card debt and could also be argued is a handout to the credit card companies.

Isn't that what the money-lenders were thrown out of the temples for?

just sayin'...

The CC companies should only be allowed to charge Prime+5, tops.

and according to history (and Wikipedia):


"Usury (comes from the Medieval Latin usuria, "interest" or "excessive interest", from the Latin usura "interest") originally meant the charging of interest on loans. This would have included charging a fee for the use of money, such as at a bureau de change. After countries legislated to limit the rate of interest on loans, usury came to mean the interest above the lawful rate. In common usage today, the word means the charging of unreasonable or relatively high rates of interest. As such, the term is largely derived from Abrahamic religious principles; Riba is the corresponding Islamic term. The primary focus in this article is on the Christian tradition.

The pivotal change in the English-speaking world seems to have come with the permission to charge interest on lent money: particularly the Act 'In restraint of usury' of Henry VIII in England in 1545 (see book references)."


but then there is this:


The First Council of Nicaea in 325, forbade clergy from engaging in usury. (canon 17) At the time "usury" meant simply interest of any kind, and the canon merely forbade the clergy to lend money on interest above one per cent per month. Later ecumenical councils applied this regulation to the laity.

Lateran III decreed that persons who accepted interest on loans could receive neither the sacraments nor Christian burial. Pope Clement V made the belief in the right to usury heresy in 1311, and abolished all secular legislation which allowed it. Pope Sixtus V condemned the practice of charging interest as "detestable to God and man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian charity."




:shrug:

gotta price in risk. Would you lend your money to a complete stranger with no strings attached for 8%. I think not.

Yes - since I'm now forced to rely on credit to exist again.

No - since Americans aren't really known for responsible spending. We don't understand moderation. I'm afraid too many would abuse it.

why?
there are PLENTY of people who have paid and DO pay off their student loans- why should others get a hand out? and why just student loans..? why not car loans, mortgages, home improvement loans, and every other type of loan?

:shrug:

It isn't fair that the financial industry gets trillions of dollars while the auto industry is fighting for mere billions. It isn't fair that the auto industry gets a bailout while other manufacturers must go with nothing. Reducing student loan payments is effectively a way of purchasing education. Education, in the long term, is part of what will help the economy recover. No, it isn't fair. These things never are.

:shrug:

Much like the responsible companies who didn't clusterfuck themselves with massive exposure to derivatives aren't getting a bailout.

nt

If we're going to have programs that are inherently unfair, I'd prefer one that supports higher education.

the schools already got their money.

...who are, in theory, the specific product of education, rather than a by-product.

if you want to support higher education, you make it easier for more students to attend thru lower tuition, grants, and lower interest rates on new student loans.

And to answer that, i'm not sure. I just know many people who went to college (were persuaded, were cajoled, were duped, etc), who wanted to go to college, who were told that to go to college meant that you would GET A JOB because of your schooling. People go to school under that overlying assumption. I'm not talking about being able to get a better or more profitable job, just A JOB.

Maybe we could offer a reduction in loan debt that would include loans that were necessary for employment?

As a person with a degree in the Arts who HAS NEVER been able to get a job in his field, i see friends who suffer from Depression, Stress, etc (note the Capital letters there) because they are crushed by a burden of debt they were given the impression they would be able to overcome once they "got a good job" after school. And if they take "any" job, they can't defer payments any longer... they live on the edge solely to pay living expenses and their debt. Low-paying jobs=NO HEALTHCARE or DENTIST and shit starts going downhill real fast.

:(

that's just ridiculous.

when you're 16 or 17 and considering College, just about everyone you talk to about it says that. Maybe because you Question All you were immune to the societal programming. But if i might ask, do you remember your pre-college years? It may have been over 20 years or so ago for me, but the pressure to conform was one of the strongest pushes in life i ever felt. I actually believe all US teens should have the option of forgoing college for 2 years to do Americorps or some other Service learning course. Expand the programs Nationwide and fully fund it with livable stipends and accredited institutions.

To be specific, i'm not sure anyone ever actually said to me that going to college would guarantee me a job. But it certainly was implied that i would be more apt to get one and when i did i would be paid better because of the degree.

hope that clarifies...

:)

and statistics do show that it's true that having a college degree means that you are more apt to find a better paying job than without one. but that's FAR from a guarantee.

also- did you have a job in mind when you worked toward your degree, and take classes that could be applied to that particular job/field?

did you research your desired career before starting school to see what kind of jobs exist/are available in your chosen field, and how much they pay and/or you could expect to earn?

:shrug:

crush the passion for learning by making higher education a mere assembly line for corporate recruitment. Gone are the days where companies would happily hire a Modern Arts graduate for a generic office job.

For fuck's sake. My fiance works in programming for a very large gaming corporation. He may have learned how to code in college, but even he has had to learn new languages constantly on the job. How fucking idiotic are companies if they expect students to come out of college programmed for their specific needs? Unfortunately, this has become the new desirable quality instead of critical thinking and contextual creativity. Very sad.

they want to see that you can jump through hoops, follow direction, & play well with others...

one thing that the internet has changed- it's an incredible resource for people who want to expand their mind, & learn for the sake of just learning...anyone can do it so much more readily...on their own at their own pace. and even those that are focused on attaining a degree, can do so online.

Sure, people who already know how to judge good information from bad can use the internet as an amazing resource. Unfortunately, sticking an uneducated person onto the net is futile. Learning how to sort through the junk to glean useful information is one of the research tools I have to teach my students. One need look no further than DU to get a very good sample of the pitfalls and successes of using online information to support discourse. As far as online degrees, I think it's a really bad trend. For one, online degrees are rarely from accredited institutions, and even when they are, few employers would recognize them or take the time to research the validity of the degree. Also, the most sophisticated program will never replace the influence of a very good professor or teacher. Students need to be prompted to challenge information as much as they need to absorb it.

I am disheartened to hear your acceptance of the capitulation of education to the corporate machine. Some of us try VERY HARD to use the platform we have now to inspire passion for learning and critical thinking in our students, even as tuition hikes and staff cuts leave us with more and more students.

it's not an issue that affects me in any direct way- my college days are long gone, and i don't/won't have any children that would be utilizing the system.
with only so many hours in a day, and only so many days in a lifetime- battles have to be chosen- and the educational system isn't one of mine.

education affects everything, and if you expect to live another 10 or 20 years, the new crop of students will be the ones delivering your mail, programming your software, answering your service calls...

I really don't see how you can rationalize that it doesn't affect you.

not everyone can put all of their energies into every cause. education isn't my "issue" as far as causes go.

Schools could be a conduit for teaching people to be responsible guardians of our planet. As it is now, schools reinforce consumerism and don't really go beyond that to educate kids about smart choices in everyday life. It's a shame that teachers are all but banned from teaching actual information as opposed to sterile regurgitation :evilfrown:

That said, I'm glad you are active and vocal about environmental issues.

First of all, "who ever said that going to college was a guarantee of a job?"

I don't know how out of touch you are with the current situation, but even entry-level jobs require a college degree. The problem is compounded by the fact that there are a LOT of influential people and organizations, schools run like corporations as well, that make money pushing college onto kids as the track to a career. It is deeply ingrained into our cultural consciousness, and it will take more than your quick, throwaway comments to change that attitude.

You're right, in a sense. Things have gotten so bad that a college degree is NOT a guarantee for a job. Companies rely more and more on industry specific certifications to further milk young people and create more hoops to jump through. This in turn leaves more jobs open to outsourcing jobs, which is really what they want to do anyway.

A decade ago, even a liberal arts degree would be sufficient enough to get you in the door in a lot of companies. Now, you need more than a college degree, you need a degree specifically tailored to a certain occupational field. THIS is the true problem. Few companies value broad knowledge and well-developed critical thinking skills which are what a liberal arts degree (is supposed to) provide. I would love to see high tech, specialized trade schools developed to replace shuttling kids though Universities, and I would like those programs to be competitive and just as prestigious in the eyes of recruiters as a degree from a University.

However, chastizing kids who go to college, get liberal arts degrees, and can't find jobs doesn't sit well with me. There SHOULD be jobs for English majors. I would like to see alternative avenues for teaching positions open to educated people with BAs in something other than education.

Corporations can take someone with a degree in Medieval History and teach him/her to be a productive asset to the company as much as someone with a marketing degree. Don't get me started on the worthlessness of Business degrees. When I taught at a large University, my business students had the worst entitlement complexes I have ever encountered in my LIFE. I'm not about to generalize for all these students, but I'm more than aware of the curriculum and attitude that is pushed in those programs.

The vast majority of other industrialized countries have comprehensive programs that cover the cost of college education. You can bloviate as much as you like about socialist schools and their overstuffed classrooms, but I taught 250 students, 50 of whom sat on the floor until I cried "FIRE CODE VIOLATION" and got a bigger room TWO MONTHS into the semester. Graduating with tens of thousands of dollars or MORE in loan debt is absolutely outrageous in this country. Reading some of the comments, some seem to think going to college is somehow irresponsible. That is shameful.

It's nice that someone's got my back. People here are starting to catch the "everyone for themself" vibe pretty strongly. I hear similar comments about the Auto bailout. "Let them fail! They should've known better!"

But is that how we want to be?

It's true i have a BA in Photography... and yeah i dreamt of being a Fine Artist. But if you see a penny lying around for the Arts lately, it's because it got misplaced and was never intended to be Granted to an "unknown" anyway.

I work in a Photo lab and make $9.50 an hour after 7 years at the job. No union, No health Insurance (thankfully my wife's employer covers us), No stability AT ALL. They can fire me for any reason, at any time. Honestly when people ask me for advice, i tell them NOT to go to college. Do a stint with a service organization and THEN GO to college IF YOU STILL WANT TO. Then mentor with someone who does what you want to do. Of course i didn't realise that at 15/16 years old... which is precisely the problem.

:shrug:

I'm only partially kidding :evilfrown: I think it's a sad state for the next generation to have to choose between pursuing their interests and making a decent paycheck. Of course, not everyone can be the next Annie Liebowitz (spelling?), but our government HAS slashed funding for museums, NGOs, libraries, etc. so that there really aren't many options for people to work in their fields. Other Western countries don't have this problem to the extent we do. I do think less kids should go to univesity, and a college education should again be for those especially interested in liberal arts education. Unfortunately, corporate culture has fucked up the whole system from a variety of angles.

but- there ARE definitely people who make money at it...a lot of times it can be about finding a niche market and coming up with a strategy to capitalize on it.

I don't have any sympathy for people who go to college and get degress in non-competative fields and then complain when they can't get a job. If you want to be an art history major you better have another major in Business, or atleast go to a city or state school where you can work and pay your tuition on your own. It is crazy to go to an expensive private school, take out large loans, pursue a major that is not competitive in the job market, and then complian when the smithsonian is not hiring and the loan bill comes.

Kids need to get a clue!

people might want to consider degrees that lead to actual jobs in the real world.

Colleges and universities are corporate farm clubs. Nothing more. Nothing less. :eyes: :eyes:

if people just want to learn for sake of learning, they don't need the structured environment of a college/university.

there's a need for Art and Culture?

Just asking...

we are not robots. People with a knowledge and appreciation of the history of human expression are more well-rounded. Art exists in every culture, it reflects and influences society. Just because such knowledge doesn't explicitly equal a marketable skill, at least in our culture, does not mean such learning is without value. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way many stopped being creative and turned to merely consuming entertainment.

are you familiar with the term "starving artist"?
it's been around for a LONG-ASS time for a reason.

go into the Arts? If the expectation is that all Artists are "starving"? I'm not asking for a "highly paid" field. I am asking for my work to be VALUED. I don't think you'll see value in something when you expect people who foster that thing to be "starving".


I somehow think you don't question all... you have basic assumptions that bring to mind to me a CLASSIST society. I hope that's not offensive, but to arbitrarily put Art and Culture on the bottom rung of worthwhile endeavors is pretty shortsighted.


:shrug:

"I am asking for my work to be VALUED."

then make art that people value- art is very subjective...just because you create something, it doesn't mean that people have to like it.

"you have basic assumptions that bring to mind to me a CLASSIST society..."

ummm....you might want to take a look around you sometime- we DO live in a CLASSIST society(but to be honest- it wasn't really my doing that made it so)

"but to arbitrarily put Art and Culture on the bottom rung of worthwhile endeavors is pretty shortsighted."

who said that it's on the bottom rung? PLENTY of artists do quite well for themselves- but then those would be the talented ones...and therein lies the difference. :hi:

to click on my links whenever you feel like it (when sig lines are back on). Then maybe you could proffer an opinion as to whether i have "talent" or not. Otherwise, STFU.


I can only infer that you obviously have never known an artist or actually appreciated Art.


Most of the best Artists in America have over the years managed to initially survive (y'know, the first 20 years or so of trying to obtain recognition so that you have a name so that your work WILL sell) by being awarded Grants by either the US Govt or by Private Foundations. The money that for the past 50 years or so that has sustained them has dried up. It's not there for them, it's not there for us "new" to the scene. It's difficult to even go into teaching... many schools can no longer afford an Arts curriculum, or if they do, they have the Science teacher(or Gym teacher) holding the Art classes.

What do you do, QuestionAll? Businessman? Retired? I wonder because you seem particularly callous. Are you friends with your neighbors? Do you believe in Community?

Y'know what? Maybe you're right, maybe we should abandon the concept of Art, because after all, it is kind of useless anyway....


:eyes:

please tell me where i said anything at all like that?

i'd suggest that you try your hand at play-writing, except that you aren't really all that good at putting words into other people's mouths.

as for me, i've been retired since i was 38- but pets and my hobbies- including the aforementioned photography, metal sculpture, gardening, scuba, and general puttering keep me plenty busy. and yes, i'm very friendly with my neighbors.

as for your "talent" when it comes to photography- i'm sure you're very good...but so are about a few million other people...and digital photograhy has only helped to make the medium that much more accessible to that many more people...and a very precious few of them will ever make a real living at it, let alone an affluent one. the ones that do make a living generally carve out a niche to serve a market- pet photography, child photography, student portraits, weddings, etc...and of course there are journalistic photogs, and even the free-lance papparazzi.

what is your goal, as far as your photography is concerned? what type of photography do you do most?

is to pursue Art solely to make a living (ie, a Career in Art) and you expect most Artists to be "starving"... how are you not saying people shouldn't go into the field? Didn't you infer "well, what do you expect?" when i said i have a BA?



...Ah retired at 38, must be nice. I'm betting you worked REAL hard to get there.




If you think pursuing Art is the same as Pet Photography you really are out there...


I really don't think you understand at all where i am coming from and honestly i feel i have devoted too much of my time already on this thread, so with all due respect i'm saying goodbye here.

Be well in your travels.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

(btw- i'm not laughing with you...and even if you don't respond, at least i have the pleasure of knowing you've seen it :hi:)

also btw- to be fair, i should mention that i retired at age 38 due to disability from an autoimmune condition that manifests itself as an arthritic spinal disease)

:shrug:

if one's intent is to pursue Art solely to make a living- perhaps on shouldn't consider art as a career.

if one's intent is to pursue Art soulfully as a form of expression of their passion, "making a living" at it is a secondary consideration at best. and yet, many of them do. why not you? :shrug:

perhaps a part of it is attitude- "If you think pursuing Art is the same as Pet Photography you really are out there..." and if you think that artists throughout history haven't found a way to use their art commercially in order to subsidze art as their passion- you're even farther out there, and your "art" school did a pretty crappy job of preparing you for the real world.

congratulations.

I want my mortgage reduced. AND my car loan! I've never missed one payment, but I should get a freebie, just for being me.

And those student loans I'm currently taking out (knowing full well I have to pay them back), I want all this college education for free too.

And I don't have credit cards, so I should get a couple of grand just for NOT having them too.


;)

They are still going to make money, the loans are for 10 years apiece, better than the 8% or whatever it is this year, it's waaay too high!

nt

It's a recipe for disaster.

a lot of fuss. When I called our credit card company and asked why our interest rates went up so much they explained that we had used some of what they granted us, in their supreme wisdom, of the credit limit (never requested that to be raised) therefore, we are 'riskier' so the interest rates HAD to be increased. Never late and always pay more than minimum but....as a posted mentioned up thread, the interest should be deductible again. I really think that since cc debt is so big anything that makes it easier to repay would greatly boost the economy plus the cc companies would still be earning plenty....with lower interest rates.

:patriot:

So you don't have to clean up the shit after 'em!

:bounce:

o/

Pony shit is actually useful for the garden. Now if the DOG were self-cleaning, oh what a world this would be!

:)

Carly

how much you know about gardening...

:shrug:

thought you were responding to me...


:silly:

I will be happy to educate you if you think the companies can make money at 5%.

as i said in the OP, it was just an idea rattling around in my brain.

Besides, i'd rather hear about how things could work.

As far as i can tell all of the old assumptions about our Economic system have been woefully inadequate for keeping the US/Global Economy stable anyway. Besides, didn't we just pretty much buy all of the Banks? Can't we have a FED/Gov't credit card that we could transfer balances to that the Free Market companies would have to compete with?

:shrug:

where would the money come from to fund the credit card bank that sends money to merchants who accept
this magical credit card?

Would you be satisfied with a return on your investment of far less than 5%, and in fact, far less than zero?

But for starters, how much money have we already poured into the banks? Couldn't that money (or the rest of it) be used to buy up debt (not derivatives, or junk that the banks hold) that we the people hold? And then refinance it all?

Could there be guidelines for applying for reduced interest Account? Income level, debt amt, amt of years of interest accrual, percentage of debt which is interest, and so on?

I'm not an "investor" so i have no assumptions about "return". But aren't Gov't bonds around 5% Aren't they (or weren't they) considered a safe investment?

Liquidate your life savings into cash, and lend it out to anyone who asks you for money, anytime, for any reason. Charge
them all 5% simple interest per year.

You will find that you will lose money. Your losses will far exceed 5%, and in fact your costs of keeping track, billing people,
reminding them of payments due, and so forth will exceed 5 cents on each dollar loaned.

Now go borrow the same amount of money that you'd have taken out of your savings to lend to people, and keep in mind that
your investors will expect a return on their investment. The credit card business might be too lucrative at 29.9% APR, but
it's not at all lucrative at even 8% APR.

SHEESH.

Sheesh yourself.

Let the credit card companies have the SAME percentages we have to *accept*. Let THEM tighten their belts and deal with it.

And you'd need cash for everything.

The replacement model already exists and is growing rapidly, the debit card system.

We have to get away from the idea that accumulating more debt is a valid economic system.

as a matter of fact, the US is the exception, NOT the rule.

but sadly I doubt it will be.

The bill says thay can't jack the rates unless......

So if they jack the rates now, it only means they can't jack them from where they are at when the bill passes. How about passing a cap on the interest rates?

To have American's rack up more debt... :eyes:

In the end, if we want to stop this eternal boom-bust cycle, we will have to re-work our currency and economy to base it in something real, production or assets or something, instead of debt which is what we have now.
:kick: & R

the one credit card I have that has a HUGE balance on it, last year I did a balance transfer to that card with a fixed 4.99 until it's paid off..I sure hope they don't try and change that rate, or I may be in a pickle.

BUT.. there should also be LIMITS to "avaliable credit" , based on income & creditworthiness..

Giving EZ-Credit to poor people may "seem" like a "generous" thing to do, but it's not..:(

Savings should have a FLOOR or 3% interest paid..

There has to be some flexibility in mortgage lending, but 8% as a top rate seems fair enough:)and equity loans should NEVER be allowed for more than 15% of the equity..and never more than once every 7 years...

It can't be absolute rates, because we're in a deflationary spiral at the moment, where rates are heading toward zero, but only for qualified borrowers.

I agree with present targets of 10% max for CC debt and 8% max for mortgage debt. Anything higher is usury, and exacerbates the present economic situation, where the consumer is maxed out by debt.

But the real problem was the easy credit policy established by Greenspan and Rubin, allowing the credit/debt bubble and market bubble to balloon. And which was made far worse under Bush. There's no easy was out now, but to pay off the debts and get used to living within our means.

But the financial district was a large contributor to Obama, so I don't see this happening any time soon. And Joe Biden (Delaware) always voted against caps on credit card rates. The economic suffering from obscene interest rates will continue in my opinion, unless there is a popular uprising of sorts to make a stand against it.

They need to at least cap rates at 12% or something around there.

A stimulus plan that only rewards the irresponsible is bullshit.

Now that is a real stimulus because it would give a lot of people a refund check.

GE AAA rated bonds expiring 2012 are 6% YTM. You are suggesting companies should be forced to lend to complete strangers, indiviuals, with almost no timeline at 4.99% interest? Completely insane.