I fully support this because we must have government controlling every aspect of our lives. We are too stupid to do anything for ourselves. Go Big Government! Go!

infinity ag said:

---

Teslag said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

3rd Coast said:

---

I'm getting really tired of Trumps ***** More regulations and more government control. Let the markets dictate what rates should be.

---

Then vote for a Dem next time.
The ripping off of America by corporations is finally ending.

---

How do high credit card rates "rip off" America?

---

The problem is for people who don't understand the math of it. Not you and I who have A&M degrees.

---

Nobody is forcing them to sign up for something they don't understand.

Instead, you think its the governments job now to protect everyone from themselves? Gee, where have I heard that before?

You can take your socialist and communist ideals elsewhere thank you very much.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Bad Trump.

He's gone from bad to worse on a number of recent policy proposals.

Next thing you know he'll embrace a 3 year extension of the "temporary" Obamacare enhanced subsidies.

---

If it passes and gets to his desk, I can easily see him signing it. After all, it is an election year on top of he doesn't have to care what any voter thinks, he's got to make the most of his last three years to make a difference.

Anybody that thinks this is a good idea should probably move to New York City.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Legal authority aside: for those who oppose this - what's your reasoning? Capping allowable interest rates would effectively push these companies to deny high risk applicants who are most likely to fall into an unrecoverable debt spiral. How is it an inherent good for our country to allow bankers to create financial traps?

There are already laws to protect young servicemen from predatory lending / rates as well as layers of individual oversight. The effect is PVTs with a Civics instead of Chargers and a mitigation of external extortionary opportunity.

Please enlighten me if I'm missing something. Who does a 30% rate benefit?

---

It's called freedom. The government needs to stay out of the business of setting prices and interest rate caps/floors in private contracts. The Fed is challenged enough to try and set the open market lending rate from the government to banks.

There was a time in life when I was young and poor, and we had to use cc's as a last resort to put food on the table and take kids to the doctor. I didn't like the interest that I paid for years, but it was an absolute lifeline to get through that stage of life.

I didn't need daddy government telling me what I could and couldn't do.

Freedom is a beautiful thing but it comes with owning the consequences of our decisions. Too many people -- including Trump in this case -- want to individualize choices but socialize the consequences.

To hell with that!

---

Oh - I understand the libertarian argument for it, but I'm too much of a pragmatist to just buy the "muh freedom" libertarian argument. And an honest man would recognize today's status quo is highly inorganic - a product of heavy lobbying, manipulation, and a century of legal transformations.

What I pose is a simple question: Is the modern practice of 20-30% interest rate credit cards a NET POSITIVE to our people?

Not just anecdotes from a man who handled his liquor once. Credit cards are a very novel concept, and I'd challenge that a huge portion of our population isn't fit for the tool.

People who claim the high interest rates are free market are missing a key point. The financial institutions, with the help of their lobbyists and campaign "donations", have locked out those who could drive the rates down. So, climb off your high horses and advocate for preventing the 2-3 entities that control 100% of the credit cards that Americans use from the monopolistic tactics they use in lock step with the corrupt politicians they have bought off.

I don't think it's a net positive, but you have to think through the unintended consequences of capping prices. For me, this particular issue is not a hill to die on. If it got capped at 10%, I'm probably not going to care one way or the other, but it will be interesting to see what the outcomes are from doing it.

I would have thought he prefer to create a new "Trump Card" or something offering low rates, made of the finest American made plastic, and his beautiful face to adorn it. Perhaps also a rewards program giving a monthly dividend of Trump Bucks to be able to spend at the future Gaza Resort he builds. It would be the greatest thing that has ever happened to the credit card industry.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Oh - I understand the libertarian argument for it, but I'm too much of a pragmatist to just buy the "muh freedom" libertarian argument. And an honest man would recognize today's status quo is highly inorganic - a product of heavy lobbying, manipulation, and a century of legal transformations.

What I pose is a simple question: Is the modern practice of 20-30% interest rate credit cards a NET POSITIVE to our people?

Not just anecdotes from a man who handled his liquor once. Credit cards are a very novel concept, and I'd challenge that a huge portion of our population isn't fit for the tool.

---

It's not the government's role to make that judgment and do anything about it. Your opinion is fine. So is mine, and anybody else's. But they're just opinions. We are free to conduct business with these companies, or not. No one is forcing anyone to use a credit card with a high interest rate.

I am beyond tired of the government trying to "fix things" in people's economic lives. They screw it up every time they do it. Some examples:

-- Obamacare impact on health insurance costs for people in the private market
-- College costs, which have escalated 8% annually forever due to the government providing endless loans and removing accountability from colleges and attempting to remove accountability from individuals thru loan forgiveness
-- Housing costs... the government was a huge reason for the housing crash of 2008 with the loan guarantees that allowed less-than-creditworthy people to borrow money to buy expensive homes that they couldn't afford to buy.

The examples are everywhere. The solution is not more government. It is less government.

Trump needs to stay the hell out of private markets. He's already made a number of bone-headed moves trying to tell companies where they have to make their products.

FrankK said:

---

People who claim the high interest rates are free market are missing a key point. The financial institutions, with the help of their lobbyists and campaign "donations", have locked out those who could drive the rates down. So, climb off your high horses and advocate for preventing the 2-3 entities that control 100% of the credit cards that Americans use from the monopolistic tactics they use in lock step with the corrupt politicians they have bought off.

---

The market on loans is not cornered. There's been an explosion in buy now, pay later arrangements from non-traditional finance organizations which charge short term interest rates less than 20% to 30%. Those arrangements are also a fool's game for anyone who gets addicted to them.

It's like alcohol, food... you name it. You can abuse anything if you consume too much of it.

We need to stop trying to socialize the consequences for individual decisions. Let people live their lives without "daddy government" trying to solve everything for them.

FrankK said:

---

People who claim the high interest rates are free market are missing a key point. The financial institutions, with the help of their lobbyists and campaign "donations", have locked out those who could drive the rates down. So, climb off your high horses and advocate for preventing the 2-3 entities that control 100% of the credit cards that Americans use from the monopolistic tactics they use in lock step with the corrupt politicians they have bought off.

---

Most people here don't even know what Free Market is. They think it is a magical thing and is infallible.

The funny thing is the corporations who actually hate free markets, created this propaganda through people like Limbaugh by paying them and have created an entire generation of cultists who just chant "WE WANT FREE MARKET" without realizing it is hurting them.

Teslag said:

---

boulderaggie said:

---

The highest cc rates right now are around 36% APR which seems egregious.

---

There's a really easy way to avoid paying that interest

---

Put down the Amazon Prime and step out of the Target

infinity ag said:

---

Most people here don't even know what Free Market is. They think it is controlled by evil CEOs who just want to get rich by screwing everybody elsea magical thing and is infallible.

The funny thing is the corporations who actually make products and services are a huge source of wealth creation in this country that allows us all to participate if we have the work ethic and perseverance it takes to gradually achieve success. Some people hate free markets, created this propaganda through people like Bernie Sanders and AOC Limbaugh by paying them buying their votes and have created an entire generation of cultists who just chant "EAT THE RICH and FIRE THE CEOsWE WANT FREE MARKET" without realizing it is hurting them.

---

FIFY

FrankK said:

---

People who claim the high interest rates are free market are missing a key point. The financial institutions, with the help of their lobbyists and campaign "donations", have locked out those who could drive the rates down. So, climb off your high horses and advocate for preventing the 2-3 entities that control 100% of the credit cards that Americans use from the monopolistic tactics they use in lock step with the corrupt politicians they have bought off.

---

So, because the govt has usurped the powers it has,and people "buy" that knd of power through lobbying, your solution is to grant govt more power !?

LOL

No thanks.

YUGE issue with any "free market" argument, though: the entire business model for lending STARTS with governmental enforcement. These companies only issue debt on the assumption that collection will be enforced. Which is a euphemism for "reliance on armed govt agents." The practice of debt collection stands upon a threat of violence.

Debt issuance isn't a free purchasing issue: it's a contract law issue, and due to the government's participation in contract enforcement, that area has tons of rules and regulations.

If a lender is reliant on governmental backing, they aren't a mere retailer, but rather an extension of policy.

He's clearly ****ing with the Dems...he's baiting them to fight him on this so everyone can see another example of TDS.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

YUGE issue with any "free market" argument, though: the entire business model for lending STARTS with governmental enforcement. These companies only issue debt on the assumption that collection will be enforced. Which is a euphemism for "reliance on armed govt agents." The practice of debt collection stands upon a threat of violence.

Debt issuance isn't a free purchasing issue: it's a contract law issue, and due to the government's participation in contract enforcement, that area has tons of rules and regulations.

If a lender is reliant on governmental backing, they aren't a mere retailer, but rather an extension of policy.

---

An assumption of governmental enforcement isn't unique to contract law. It applies to EVERYTHING that distinguishes a country-ruled-by-law from those that are dictatorships, communist, and anarchist.

Property laws. Labor laws. Environmental laws. Patients' rights laws... etc. You name it.

Just because the government ensures the foundation that allows a free market to function does NOT mean that the government has the right to interfere in its operation simply due to the whims of politicians. Contractual terms for price and volume between two independent entities is not the government's business.

No sir. That is a path to way more government control than you or I want.

TexasAggie73 said:

---

Wouldn't that be lowering the profit levels for banks and their stockholders?

---

Could their investment arms short their own stock as a hedge against lost revenue?

"conservative" Trump and MAGA.

If Obama had ordered this, MAGA would be going nuclear.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

YUGE issue with any "free market" argument, though: the entire business model for lending STARTS with governmental enforcement. These companies only issue debt on the assumption that collection will be enforced. Which is a euphemism for "reliance on armed govt agents." The practice of debt collection stands upon a threat of violence.

Debt issuance isn't a free purchasing issue: it's a contract law issue, and due to the government's participation in contract enforcement, that area has tons of rules and regulations.

If a lender is reliant on governmental backing, they aren't a mere retailer, but rather an extension of policy.

---

An assumption of governmental enforcement isn't unique to contract law. It applies to EVERYTHING that distinguishes a country-ruled-by-law from those that are dictatorships, communist, and anarchist.

Property laws. Labor laws. Environmental laws. Patients' rights laws... etc. You name it.

Just because the government ensures the foundation that allows a free market to function does NOT mean that the government has the right to interfere in its operation simply due to the whims of politicians. Contractual terms for price and volume between two independent entities is not the government's business.

No sir. That is a path to way more government control than you or I want.

---

In most places I'd err toward your perspective. But debt? No. If king for the day I'd kill off pay-day lending, buy-now-pay-later, federal student loans, car loans, store cards, airline cards, and more. I'd set standards for a line of credit high enough that large swathes of the population would be rendered ineligible. Personal debt is a massive problem in our society but because it's become normalized to us, most don't recognize how historically abnormal this practice is.

shiftyandquick said:

---

"conservative" Trump and MAGA.

If Obama had ordered this, MAGA would be going nuclear.

---

Are you able to read a room at all? Most posters on this thread are against Trump's announcement.

Your lack of awareness and trolling is first tier.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

YUGE issue with any "free market" argument, though: the entire business model for lending STARTS with governmental enforcement. These companies only issue debt on the assumption that collection will be enforced. Which is a euphemism for "reliance on armed govt agents." The practice of debt collection stands upon a threat of violence.

Debt issuance isn't a free purchasing issue: it's a contract law issue, and due to the government's participation in contract enforcement, that area has tons of rules and regulations.

If a lender is reliant on governmental backing, they aren't a mere retailer, but rather an extension of policy.

---

An assumption of governmental enforcement isn't unique to contract law. It applies to EVERYTHING that distinguishes a country-ruled-by-law from those that are dictatorships, communist, and anarchist.

Property laws. Labor laws. Environmental laws. Patients' rights laws... etc. You name it.

Just because the government ensures the foundation that allows a free market to function does NOT mean that the government has the right to interfere in its operation simply due to the whims of politicians. Contractual terms for price and volume between two independent entities is not the government's business.

No sir. That is a path to way more government control than you or I want.

---

In most places I'd err toward your perspective. But debt? No. If king for the day I'd kill off pay-day lending, buy-now-pay-later, federal student loans, car loans, store cards, airline cards, and more. I'd set standards for a line of credit high enough that large swathes of the population would be rendered ineligible. Personal debt is a massive problem in our society but because it's become normalized to us, most don't recognize how historically abnormal this practice is.

---

Valid points. It's a function of our consumer based economy where debt is king and fuels growth. I wonder if Trump has thought this through to the end where if we do get 10% caps and CCs start cutting off the risky consumers, then consumer spending could/would drop.

We are in a death spiral at this point on all things debt so I'm not sure if we can pull out of any of this regardless of policy. So the financial health would improve for the population (in theory), but at the expense of our spend economy. Things are going to get interesting over next few years.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

YUGE issue with any "free market" argument, though: the entire business model for lending STARTS with governmental enforcement. These companies only issue debt on the assumption that collection will be enforced. Which is a euphemism for "reliance on armed govt agents." The practice of debt collection stands upon a threat of violence.

Debt issuance isn't a free purchasing issue: it's a contract law issue, and due to the government's participation in contract enforcement, that area has tons of rules and regulations.

If a lender is reliant on governmental backing, they aren't a mere retailer, but rather an extension of policy.

---

An assumption of governmental enforcement isn't unique to contract law. It applies to EVERYTHING that distinguishes a country-ruled-by-law from those that are dictatorships, communist, and anarchist.

Property laws. Labor laws. Environmental laws. Patients' rights laws... etc. You name it.

Just because the government ensures the foundation that allows a free market to function does NOT mean that the government has the right to interfere in its operation simply due to the whims of politicians. Contractual terms for price and volume between two independent entities is not the government's business.

No sir. That is a path to way more government control than you or I want.

---

In most places I'd err toward your perspective. But debt? No. If king for the day I'd kill off pay-day lending, buy-now-pay-later, federal student loans, car loans, store cards, airline cards, and more. I'd set standards for a line of credit high enough that large swathes of the population would be rendered ineligible. Personal debt is a massive problem in our society but because it's become normalized to us, most don't recognize how historically abnormal this practice is.

---

I'm glad you're not king. I and many others value the freedom that comes with being an American and don't want rulers or politicians intruding into our personal lives and making choices for us.

YouBet said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

"conservative" Trump and MAGA.

If Obama had ordered this, MAGA would be going nuclear.

---

Are you able to read a room at all? Most posters on this thread are against Trump's announcement.

Your lack of awareness and trolling is first tier.

---

But they will support him. There is nothing he can do that will cause them to turn away. Epstein files proved that.

shiftyandquick said:

---

YouBet said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

"conservative" Trump and MAGA.

If Obama had ordered this, MAGA would be going nuclear.

---

Are you able to read a room at all? Most posters on this thread are against Trump's announcement.

Your lack of awareness and trolling is first tier.

---

But they will support him. There is nothing he can do that will cause them to turn away. Epstein files proved that.

---

You can disagree with a politician on an issue and still support them overall. There are some things where I disagree with Trump. There are many more where I agree. And I can't think of hardly a single thing where I agreed with Kamala. Thus, I'll give Trump hell on this issue but will also defend him from the left that's becoming increasingly communistic and off-the-charts on the crazy matrix.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

YUGE issue with any "free market" argument, though: the entire business model for lending STARTS with governmental enforcement. These companies only issue debt on the assumption that collection will be enforced. Which is a euphemism for "reliance on armed govt agents." The practice of debt collection stands upon a threat of violence.

Debt issuance isn't a free purchasing issue: it's a contract law issue, and due to the government's participation in contract enforcement, that area has tons of rules and regulations.

If a lender is reliant on governmental backing, they aren't a mere retailer, but rather an extension of policy.

---

An assumption of governmental enforcement isn't unique to contract law. It applies to EVERYTHING that distinguishes a country-ruled-by-law from those that are dictatorships, communist, and anarchist.

Property laws. Labor laws. Environmental laws. Patients' rights laws... etc. You name it.

Just because the government ensures the foundation that allows a free market to function does NOT mean that the government has the right to interfere in its operation simply due to the whims of politicians. Contractual terms for price and volume between two independent entities is not the government's business.

No sir. That is a path to way more government control than you or I want.

---

In most places I'd err toward your perspective. But debt? No. If king for the day I'd kill off pay-day lending, buy-now-pay-later, federal student loans, car loans, store cards, airline cards, and more. I'd set standards for a line of credit high enough that large swathes of the population would be rendered ineligible. Personal debt is a massive problem in our society but because it's become normalized to us, most don't recognize how historically abnormal this practice is.

---

Uninformed take. Debt is useful in our society and like most things, can be good or bad depending on context. You Dave Ramsey types who don't understand financial issues beyond what you heard some non expert internet personality or preacher tell you are exactly the types that need to learn to shut up and let other people live their lives. You are the types who think you can control something and the market will not find another way. Even Ramsey says his rules are for the lowest common denominator of people who don't understand how money and finance works.

How about actually arresting those that committed ****ing TREASON instead????

Waco Ag said:

---

Anybody that thinks this is a good idea should probably move to New York City.

---

this will never ever come close to happening

High interest rates and lottery are both ways in which people bad at math are penalized. The government want to restrict one of them. Why aren't they restricting both?

A more careful read would show that I didn't include debt tools whose common use is to pursue an appreciating asset or business opportunity. That wasn't by mistake.

But you get to decide who is worthy of credit and who can provide that credit or how it is structured. ETA: You cite a single structure that you believe is ok while completely ignoring how financial markets work and even the basic concept of the fungibility of money.

Same thing. Still asinine or uninformed (and the opposite of a conservative position). Take your pick.

"What I pose is a simple question: Is the modern practice of 20-30% interest rate credit cards a NET POSITIVE to our people?"

Irrelevant

shiftyandquick said:

---

YouBet said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

"conservative" Trump and MAGA.

If Obama had ordered this, MAGA would be going nuclear.

---

Are you able to read a room at all? Most posters on this thread are against Trump's announcement.

Your lack of awareness and trolling is first tier.

---

But they will support him. There is nothing he can do that will cause them to turn away. Epstein files proved that.

---

So my because I disagree with trump on a few issues I should vote for someone that I disagree with on just about every issue?


Do you even think before you type? Seriously? At this point your trolling is becoming more and more obvious.

This is the type of thing the Republicans should bundle into a piece of legislation, perhaps on immigration, and force the Dems to say "no" to a cap on credit card rates.