>"Increase government regulation"

How about the government fix problems like the war in Iraq and border security before they start sticking their noses in the private business of others?

This is just window-dressing. The banking lobby has bought off the Democrats just as much as it has the Republicans. (The Democrats, after all, are in control of both the House and Senate; if they wanted to, they could reform it all today.)

@TheUncleBob:
Uncle Bob, you've got it all wrong. If the Democrats get in, look for increased government involvement in various aspects of our lives. We need the government to look after us, because we are too stupid to think for ourselves. A five-star rating system for credit cards is a great idea...you don't mean to tell me you can understand fees and stuff all by yourself?

Yet another interference with businesses proposed! Ever think that sometimes, consumers are accountable for their own actions? If you spend $100k on your credit card, you have ot pay it back, and why would anyone give you 100k? To earn money! Why else do banks do it???? Would you just loan someone 100k, and just wait for that to come back, while inflation, and lost interest increases? No!

This is the kind of government intrusion I prefer. It provides more information and less corporate abuse of the situation. It also helps to prevent a larger national financial problem like the one were seeing now where people can't pay their mortgages and we have banks tanking.

The kind of government intrusion I don't want is telling me who I can marry, what I can't consume (also the when and the where) because someone else doesn't approve. Or teaching my kids flawed information because someone else just can't mind their own business. Add warrantless wiretapping and other questionable big brother style monitoring.

At least the types of government intervention the Democratic side has been proposing lately is things that protect or benefit the citizens vs. corporate america.

I am not sure how yet, but Messincans are to blame to this, too.

Clinton voted FOR the bankruptcy bill, which was written by the credit card companies so that people who file for bankruptcy (much more difficult BTW) can't clean slate their credit card debts. Instead, they come out of bankruptcy still owing that money and can have their houses taken away and paychecks garnished.

It's the bill that she claims she didn't want to pass even though she voted for it.

@ClayS: The problem isn't fees -- those are easy enough to understand. The problem is shady practices by the credit card agencies, such as:

1. Reducing your credit limit, which has the effect of lowering your credit score, then raising your rate because your credit score went down.

2. Universal default.

3. Changing your due date so that automated payments show up late.

4. Delaying credit payments on your account.

5. Allowing a payment to go through, even when there's no available credit line, then charging an "over-the-limit" fee.

6. Legalese in account terms & conditions intended to obfuscate changes; with a little bit of effort, these can be written in plain english.

7. Changing the terms on people who have run up a bunch of debt -- effectively, they're a captive audience; they generally can't move their debt someplace else.

According to the Bible usury is a sin. Its against the law in countries that practice Sharia law such as Saudi Arabia. There is no reason why anyone should be charged more than 10% interest on anything. To charge more is a crime against humanity in my opinion. So Hillary proposes a 36% cap? That's still usurious.

@Pupster:
Good vote by Clinton in my opinion. One of the reasons credit card interest rates and fees are so high is the number of bankrupcies.

Responsible consumers are negatively impacted by the deadbeats.

@ClayS: You are completely wrong to make a causal link between bankruptcies and what interest rate your bank credit card charges you. There's no relation at all. Credit card companies charge the interest rates they can get away with, regardless of their other costs. It's one of the most profitable businesses in banking.

Hillary voted for the bill because as a NY Senator, she heavily promotes and defends the banking industry. She fundraises heavily from banks.

Most people file for bankruptcy as a last resort. Recent reports say close to 80% of personal bankruptcies (Chapter 7) come from medical catastrophe. It ruins your credit for a long time to come. But people who go through it should have some chance of reclaiming their lives. The bankruptcy bill, written by credit card companies, completely kills that chance as those debts never get wiped off.

ClayS, you don't know much about the finance industry if you are making such claims.

@ClayS: Exactly. Why should someone get to run up a bunch of debt, then decide they can't pay it off?

    If I thought either candidate could REALLY pull off their plan, it would be interesting. Obama's is more doable, I think. People actually pay 30%? Now? Wow. Expecting the lenders to explain things clearly, when the Government can't, is a pie-in-the-sky demand, if I've ever heard one. Ever read a "simple" government .pdf? Creating a financial "bill of rights" on the surface sounds good. The devil's in the details, on that one.

    Frankly, I think more good could be done by requiring some sort of "personal management" course out of high school grads. This could teach stuff about credit, bill paying, scam-avoidance, etc. I'd think we jettison a semester of foreign language requirement, or even English. GRADZ R CHATTIN LK DIS, BTW, YO?

    All of this could be avoided if people would just NOT take out loans they can't pay back, and lenders would stop signing up really risky clients. But, no. We have to have the incompetent government administer it, now, because we the people have screwed it up SO badly!

@Pupster:
I agree that credit card companies can charge the rates they wish regardless of their costs. But credit card companies are competing with each other for consumer debt. They need to make a profit and they do. But defaults are a significant cost, and you can be sure they are passing those losses on to the responsible consumers in the form of higher interest rates and fees.

Gasoline companies also compete with each other based on price. If the cost of crude oil goes up, so will gas prices. The converse is also true.

I am all for simplifying the ridiculous "Terms and conditions" accompanying credit card offers, which have lost all logical sense.
However, the politicians can't honestly promise to fix something that is, ultimately, and American behavioral pattern.
How about not spending more than we own? That's a revolutionary idea.

Anyone dumb enough to actually believe that report ? Politicians ain't never gonna' go to bat for us with the CC companies...

It's all empty talk...

Boy, what a bunch of whiners and helpless people!! I cannot find anywhere in my copy of the US constitution where it requires the government to bail me out of my own stupidity. Anyone who owes a monthly recurring charge on a credit card is so dumb it is hard to fathom how they get thru a normal day. We let far too many people vote who have no idea of personal responsibility. If you are in debt on credit cards you deserve to pay thru the nose.

@ClayS: @TheUncleBob: Please educate yourselves a bit on how bankruptcy works, the recent bankruptcy bill and Clinton's and Obama's stances on it. This article: [thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com] is a good place to start. Please read the informative comments below to flesh out the details.

About the only part of that I agree with is to make them spell out their terms and fees in plain English so that anyone who doesn't have an advanced math or business degree can actually understand what the hell is going on.

But let's dissect some of the other points:
-Stop credit card companies from increasing rates without written consent from consumers and prevent rate increases because of missed payments on unrelated accounts.

If you're persistently late on other accounts, then it is riskier to continue to lend you money. Other lenders would probably like to include similar language in their loans, but would run off a ton of business in doing so. CC companies get away with it because this country is addicted to the damn things.

-Write a credit card "bill of rights" that would stop credit card companies from making "unilateral" changes to the terms of cards as well as apply interest rate increases only to future debt. It would also stop card companies from charging interest on fees, something the Clinton plan includes as well.

I agree the language should be clearer, but so many people sign up for credit cards without reading any of the terms that I don't think it would make a difference except to cause them to bump their rates for everyone a point or so to comply with all the new regulation.

-Increase government regulation of credit cards and other credit products through the creation of a Financial Product Safety Commission.

More regulation = higher cost to consumers. Companies spend money to comply with regulations. On the same token, they want to maintain their profit margin at the same levels, so they increase their prices. Who pays for it? US.

There's a simple solution to all this mess...encourage people to NOT use credit cards. When we don't buy things on credit, inflation slows, people save more money, making that money available for people who need to borrow it for worthwhile endeavors, such as buying homes or expanding a business. Not to mention, if you're not in debt, if you lose a job or suffer some other kind of hardship, making it through that period is that much easier.

McCain and Huckabee have both spoken on this, but I wouldn't expect to see anything positive about Conservatives or Republicans here.
Just chnage the name of this site from the Consumerist to the Communist, because those are the talking points that we get here.

@ClayS: Clay, I wish I had more time and space to really explain how the credit card industry works. They really don't 'compete' with each other as you say. Instead, it is beneficial to all those companies to charge high rates together. In fact, every once in a while there's always some action by some state or federal prosecutor wanting to charge the cc companies with collusion in setting rates, but it's killed by the lobbyists and politicians who act on the banking companies' behalf.

The truth is that there is no good reason you and I with great credit still get charged high interest rates. They do it because they can.

Holy mackerel. Attack of the wing-nuts!

@Pupster: you're (sadly but sweetly) assuming people of these ilk want to discuss, exchange ideas or do anything besides parrot Republican (via credit card lobbyist) talking points. Or are conversant - or interested in being conversant - in, what's the word... Facts. Noble effort, though.

@Pupster:
If credit card companies aren't competing with each other, why am I getting a few mailings a week from them?

And I pay 0% interest, because I live within my means. In fact, my annual rebate from Amex is about $1200, so they are paying me. Crazy huh?

Damn, the right wingers and libertarians are taking over this board.

@ClayS: Those are teaser rates that last no more than a few months. If you are gaming the system, then good for you, as the vast majority of people don't have that opportunity.

Clay, I hope to God that no medical trouble befalls you, or that you don't lose your job or some other horrible circumstance. (Your response might be, I have insurance or I have savings. But you'll be shocked when you are put to the test.)

I firmly believe in personal responsibility too, but there are times when individuals hit bottom, often by circumstance rather than bad decisions. The bankruptcy bill was entirely to help the banks to further profit.

Let me ask you, that bill has been in effect for a while now. Have you seen your credit card rate go down? No, I didn't think so.

@Trai_Dep: I can only assume these people genuinely don't know, as their answers are so misguided. If it prompts them to do a little more research, then why should I not say something?

@ClayS:

The Republicans got in, consistently favored corporate interests over those of the citizenry, scared the crap out of us with vague threats of terrorism whenever it's politically convenient, dismissed rights like habeas corpus as naïve and antiquated, sent hundreds of thousands of people to fight--and thousands to die--in a war based on lies, and threw a hissy fit when merely one of their attempts to pardon their criminal actions failed...how can anyone think Democrats are even a tenth as good at meddling in our lives? How?

But hey, it's great that you're up to speed with Republican talking points circa 1988. Please read some news from the last decade or so.

@nikalseyn: i fart in your general direction. i bid you good day now. ha!

@ClayS: It's clear that many consumers either can't or don't bother to understand the terms and conditions of contracts they sign, but of course they probably won't be able to figure out a 5-star system either... they'll have to toss a coin to decide whether more or less stars is good.

I hardly think a Democratic administration could be any better at being up our asses than these so-called conservatives that have been illegally eavesdropping on us since 12 September 2001. It's fine to be skeptical about the plans of a new administration, as long as you're also skeptical of the money-printing fake conservatives who claim to be a better option.

@GearheadGeek: As a fiscal conservative, I don't see how the Republicans can lay any claim to being better for the economy. Compare the value of our dollar now to what it was worth in 2001 when Bush took office. It's frightening how worthless the dollar is these days.

@Pupster: Are you agreeing with me? I hardly think "money-printing fake conservatives" sounds like I have any faith in the fiscal responsibility of the current administration. W was a lousy governor I voted against in TX, left Mr. Hairdo who's even worse and has spent us into a monstrous hole on the relatively few days he actually shows up for work in Washington. He's a disaster with legs.

The answer isn't just "quit using credit cards." In this modern life we are almost REQUIRED to use credit cards. Try to rent a car without one. HAH!

And there are a myriad of things that require a valid credit card number -- like getting off a direct marketer's mailing address, even for FREE. Buy an airline ticket with cash and see yourself getting very, very closely examined, if not detained, by TSA.

The credit card industry is the only idustry of which I am aware that can change the price of an item long after you've purchased it simply because they want to. People need credit cards to make purchases of itmes that they need NOW and hopefully they will use good judgment to only purchase what they can reasonably pay off quickly.

The credit card industry has basically eliminated bankruptcy protection but still feels the need to gouge the average consumer. A purchase one could pay off in 2 months (like a car repair) can quickly become an overwhelming debt once the CC company lowers your credit availability, tacks on all sorts of over the limit fees, late fees, and universal default interest rates.

And what's scariest of all, this can happen to a consumer who has done nothing wrong except be the unfortunate victim of identity theft.

The CC companies know they are using unfair practices. I suspect that is why some CC companies magically decided to "police themselves" and discontinue universal default the day before they were called into congressional meetings investigating horror stories of credit card customers.

Yes, it's time for change. Not only do we consumers need to change our attitude about using credit loosely, the credit card companies need to at least meet us half way and stop abusing even the most responsible credit card holders.

I would love to use my debit cards as an alternative, but without more security and user rights, I'll unfortunately still favor a credit card.

@bohemian: I thought it, but you said it before I could (and better, too). If government interference is required to keep us from destroying the economy, then by golly, let's get some dang regulations out there....

If I was a Presidential candidate I would say whatever it took to get elected. Once I wa elected I would work on with the excuses.

@GearheadGeek: Yes, I was agreeing with you. In spades.

Credit Cards are only a problem for people who abuse them. The risks and fees are all written in plain text. Other than bill cycle dates changing and increased rates, Credit cards shouldn't be much of an issue from politics.. It's an issue for people who need to exercise self restraint and money management.

-that's definitely the most conservative thing Iv'e ever said..

ah, the perfect consumer revolution storm. Imagine if cardholders united and stopped paying their collective 1 trillion debt. Added to the mortgage blowout, the wheels come off this usurious economy. Forget the pitchforks and angry mobs, just say "no" to your credit card bill and let the revolution begin. Just sayin…

Both plans are pretty much retarded. Clinton's plan won't change a thing as most normal credit card companies already go buy that.

Obama's plan is really retarded...5 star rating system? Yeah last time I checked I completely ignore those star ratings because they more than likely don't tell me a damn thing about what I'm buying.

@laserjobs: So you'd be the Republican candidate, then. Good to know.

@bunnyhead: I kinda like that idea. Of course there is some negative retaliation (collections and credit scores) but a large enough scale refusal for a long period of time could really cause a larger problem that most people realize.

While most can appreciate the effort, most people (the candidates included) are looking at this the wrong way in my opinion:

A contract is entered into by two or more parties (in this case, a consumer and the bank). I know as a consumer, I cannot make any unilateral changes to the terms and conditions. What if I were to send them written notice that effective the next billing cycle, my APR is being reduced by 5 percent? I've been tempted to try it. The fact is, the bank can (and often does) make unilateral changes without the consumer's consent to a contract previously agreed to. Now I know what most of you are probably thinking: "You agreed to the fine print stipulating that the card issuer can change its rates/policies at any time". This doesn't make it fair. If there should be any reform, it should be limited to this practice. My suggestion, if a bank wants to change my rates and/or terms, they may do so with 90 days or more notice. Give me a reasonable time to either pay off the card or transfer the balance to another card to avoid being forced to accept the new terms (even for a short time) if I don't agree.

Oh yeah, to hell with binding arbitration too.

@bunnyhead: That will happen in about a year.

FWIW, I understand the calls here for fiscal restraint. But sometimes, people live beyond their means, without meaning to, thinking that a great job is around the corner, or their MFAs aren't worthless, or whatever delusion. So they spend an extra couple hundred per month, maybe more if they have car repairs or whatever. When things don't pan out, and they have six credit cards, all at 35% interest, it all becomes problematic. The banks, had they been acting in good faith, would've seen the rash of defaults and bankruptcies and foreclosures coming, and mitigated against it by not building a business model around risky loans to people living paycheck-to-paycheck.

I'm more than a little disturbed by Hillary Clinton's suggestion that 30% is a reasonable limit for credit card interest. Of course, I wasn't planning on voting for her anyway, and haven't thus far.

Didn't we just have an article about payday loans where people were bitching about too much oversight? So credit card reform is ok, but payday loan reform isn't? This seems very contradictory. Either we want the government wiping our asses for us, or we don't; we can't have it both ways. If we think that people should be responsible enough not to get themselves into shady payday loans, then people should be responsible enough not to get themselves into shady credit cards. The terms ARE there when you sign up, and like a payday loan, if you don't like it, pay it off and close the account. If you don't have the ability to pay it off, then you shouldn't have spent beyond your means in the first place.

>>>>>>>>>>
The answer isn't just "quit using credit cards." In this modern life we are almost REQUIRED to use credit cards. Try to rent a car without one. HAH!
>>>>>>>>>>

Umm. Pay the balance off every month.

I charge a minimum of $25,000.00 month on my business and persoanl credit cards. I haven't paid a dollar in fees in the last 5 years. And I've gotten 2 LCD tv's from my Sony card points and probably $6000 in Home Depot gift cards from my business card.

If you don't like what credit card companies charge, don't use credit cards.

I hope they realize that they need to repeal that bankruptcy bill and ease the bankruptcy laws during what promises to be a long and drawn out recession/financial crisis. And they should allow student loans to be discharged.

And if you say people should be responsible, then make the corporations and banks more responsible. Let's even the playing field.

>>Disappointingly, none of the remaining Republican contenders seem to care about credit card reform.
That's what makes Republicans Republicans. Why the hell should they get involved into something that not of vital government interest? Do we really want cradle-to-grave coddling? Small print is small, but not illegible. No one forces bad credit cards upon us. Jesus H. Christ, let me use my own brain, and support myself. If I want a usury payday advance, it's my own problem. Capital One credit card? My own problem. Subprime loan? My own problem (except, don't bail out the loan buyers). Makes life in Somalia seem reasonable -- take care of yourself, even if it's tough. Life is tough.