The Democratic Candidates and Your Credit Cards

Obama

Obama was only elected to the Senate in 2004. Secondly , he has spent at least the last year running for President. Obama is totally unqualified to be President. He doesn't even have enough experience yet to be an effective Senator. It is one thing to run around and say Yes we can change, it is quite another thing to get it done. Wake up Democrats this guy is not going to get anything done. He will spend the first days in the White House looking for the mens room, nevermind figuring out who are the important people in the Pentagon. Yeah righ change. Also, Obama lists in his backgorund that he was a "community organizer". What on earth is that supposed to mean? You know what it sounds like to me a resume filler when you were un-employed. Do tell Mr. Obama what is a community organizer? Who pays you when you are a community organizer. Mr. Obama is just full of empty rhetoric.

@Harry Clemitine: While I agree with you, your comment is completely unrelated to this post.

I like Clinton's plan because it's actually a plan. She's specific in what she is going to do whereas Obama is not. I am a Republican, but if a Democrat is going to be president, I think Clinton would do a much better job.

Harry, stop whining. We need to stick together and follow whoever gets the nomination. Democrats need to take back the white house this year.

Five-star rating system? Like the terror alert coding system? Sorry, that just sounds too vague and too symbolic for me. Ditto "bill or rights". I share Harry's concern, though not his vehemence. So much of legislation and policy is "engineering", which one learns with practice in creating and comparing the results of multiple scenarios with multiple, dynamic variables.

Hillary and Obama

I totally agree with what Hillary Clinton is trying to get across to the American people about credit card companies . Although some people abuse the use of their credit cards, others have to use them for personal reasons whether they want to or not. If something isnt done soon, the credit card companies will have everyone over a barrell with no way out. As far as voting for president, Obama seems to be a very intellegent person, but I believe experience is on Hillarys side. I am going to vote for Hillary for president because I believe she can do the job.

Do any of you guys stand up to pee. All I hear from you Dems is who is going to take care of poor little me. Take some responsibility for your lives. Are you to stupid to understand that banks are out to make a buck;i f you dont like to high interest rates dont use a credit card. If you want to buy a home do what any normal person would do start at the bottom and work your way to a bigger home. But no, the Me gereration has to have the biggest and newes. Then you expect everyone else to bail you out when things go sour. Poor little MEs.

credit cards plans

The plans of both candidates have faults.

Take Clinton's for example, 30 percent is ridicoulously high rate. And why would anyone agree to that high limit.

$1000 credit card loan @ 27% interest will take you closer to 30 years to pay off if you are paying the minimum. That is not considering the 30% rate. Is she kidding me? Also, as soon as you make that into law, you will give the credit card companies ammunition to charge the high rate. why? Because they can according to the law.

Another thing, as far as getting the consumer to agree, that would be specified in that small print that nobody bothers to read. And then what? Consumer would be trapped.

And the rest of her proposal, more of the same - Bureaucratic at best.

As for Obama's plan, all well and good but he need's to think a little deeper. 5 star rating won't mean a thing as far as these banks are concerned.

The offer can start at 5 stars, and be changed to one start after 30 days; And then what?

The one thing that I thing would help consumer is stopping the banks from assesing the ridicoulously high interest rate on existing balance, including the late fee and other fees.

@Harry of NJ,

Your comment about Barrack lacks some merrit. If you are so keen on experience, look at GW. What happened to him with all of the experience he hard as the Governor of TX? Look at all of these experience congressmen and senators that have demostrated extremely poor judgement on the affairs of the state, with absolutely no consideration for the people that elected them.

Also, Obama has been working with people for about 27 years. His resume is impeccable. In Illinois, he's admired for his ability to stay focused on issues that concerns the people of Illinois. And best one of all is willingness to reach out to Republicans to get bills passed. That is one of the reason that even Republicans in Illinois voted for him. That is the experience that matters my friend.

Let's scrutinize whose plan helps us most than the other

I am not sure how many of you ever applied for a credit card, but the plan that’s proposed by Hillary are a bit hard to digest. Let's scrutinize it a bit, shall we?

1. Cap credit card interest rates at 30 percent. (The Government Accountability Office reports that 1 in 4 credit cards charges higher rates.) - I have never ever saw a credit card that has an APR close 30%, but this rates only come into picture on anyone's credit card bill when they default their payments, i.e., miss their payments. And secondly, if you can’t afford or maintain to pay your debts on time then whose problem is that, yours or the credit card company? So this point has no impact on whatsoever on larger section of the population that pays their debt on time.

2. Stop credit card companies from increasing rates without written consent from consumers and prevent rate increases because of missed payments on unrelated accounts: As I mentioned above the way APR works in current economy, there’s nothing a consumer can do about it. Although according to the credit card agreement, you have been receiving all the updated related to your change in your agreements. So if you need a letter to sign and sent back with your consent on the increased charges, then yeah! You should get a letter from all your credit card companies. Again this kind of agreement is already in place today, so I’m not sure what exactly we are trying to change with this plan.

3. Require card companies to explain terms and fees clearly to consumers: Has no one ever received any letter from their credit card company over the change in agreement terms??

4. Increase government regulation of credit cards and other credit products through the creation of a Financial Product Safety Commission: Ha ha !! Another way of fooling the masses during election year by coming up with some kind of idea to build a commission or committee that works under the shadow of corporate executives or lobbyist and has no transparency of whatsoever to ordinary junta.

Now about Obama’s plan:

1. Create a five-star rating system for credit cards so consumers have a better sense of the fees and rates associated with each card. Card companies would have to display their star ratings with their application materials: This seems to make life bit simple for all those who have no knowledge of how credit card APR works, and I gotta tell ya, this would more helpful to a lager section of the population, who don’t understand the math behind these credit card APRs.

2. 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: well this is something new compare to what we have currently on all credit card agreements. As the sudden changes on credit card terms would only affect the future debt but not the ones that present today. In a way, what this means is, your credit card will only charge the new APR on your new purchases rather than your current balance. This way it makes you alert to curb your expenses and try to pay-off your debts.

I hope this makes sense to all who blindly follow any political candidate without scrutinizing their policy plans.

Cheers!!

Democrates for the win

Dear Hilliary, Obama,

Thank you for bailing me out of the house I can't pay for. And thank you for forgiving the credit cards I can't pay for. Also thank you for the free health care I'm sure that will come in handy. I am leaning my vote for you but Obama is giving out the same things so I'm torn. I'm trying to think of my other problems but it is taking me some time because your programs are pretty comprehensive and cover all my big ones.

I guess I'm concerned with social security. See I'm not going to be able to collect it for another 30 years and by that time there is going to be nothing left. I can charge most things on my credit card but I do need cash for the little stuff. If you can lower the requirement age by some 30 years that will be perfect and I will so vote for you.

Hillary for God.

Hifalutin "plans" vs. Getting to the Point

In response to Sydney and her insistence that Hilary has "plans":

1. Cap credit card interest rates at 30 percent. (The Government Accountability Office reports that 1 in 4 credit cards charges higher rates.)

Like Harry said, if you have interest rates that high, it's because you messed up. I'm fairly new to the credit game and have never received an initial offer higher than 22%.

2. Stop credit card companies from increasing rates without written consent from consumers and prevent rate increases because of missed payments on unrelated accounts.

I agree with the part concerning unrelated accounts, but written consent? She must mean written notification which companies already do. Who in their right mind would "consent" or agree to a higher rate?

What if I don't agree to the higher rate? I'm pretty sure the companies will be able to penalize me in some way.

These are the only concrete measures of Hilary's "plan."

3. Require card companies to explain terms and fees clearly to consumers.

Credit companies already explain terms and fees. Whether or not they do so clearly depends on the person. I'm only 22 and I understand exactly what my creditors expect from me.

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

Come on, a "Financial Product Safety Commission"? This is Hil's version of empty rhetoric. She just attaches a fancy name to it so it sounds legitimate.

With Obama:

1) Create a five-star rating system for credit cards so consumers have a better sense of the fees and rates associated with each card. Card companies would have to display their star ratings with their application materials.

I have to agree with Harry on this one. A star rating system would be an easy way to help consumers who already don't understand credit cards. We use star rating systems on everything else. If you're on Amazon, do you buy from the guy with 1 star or 4 stars? If I get an offer with 2 stars and another with 4, the two star will definitely meet the paper shredder.

2) 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.

"Bill of Rights" vs. "Financial Product Safety Commission". One may sound a little smarter cause it uses more words...but they seem to want to accomplish the same thing to me.

Applying the changes to future debt is the only fair way. You have a choice to decide whether or not you want to spend and be subject to those rates. When you built up your existing balance, you built it under those rules and made your spending decision based on that information and that's what you should be held accountable for.

credit card via health care cost

Off topic--this is health care, not credit cards--but one way we pay huge medical bills is through our plastic. This double whammy could be avoided with a sane national health approach. Isn't it odd how careful budgeting and serious saving can be wiped out without insurance for illness/death? That low initial interest card reserve is often a cross-your-fingers-and hope-for-the-best. And the house may be the next collateral.

I'm a believer in the law of large numbers: Hillary's plan REQUIRES all the healthy AND ailing to be in the pile, thus everyone's cost is averaged. Expense will be lower if we all work at staying healthy in this country, as well. Early diagnosis and preventive measures will save dollars.

When businesses don't set rates based on poor health, competitive bids are more reasonable, so we all win. The sickest few, some eligible for public care only when all their resources are exhausted, are often served at the local level--reimbursed through higher fees, and through taxes you pay.

A national medical care plan must require that dollars allocated for it, be used for it. Current doctors will participate unless they are not able to work for the negotiated price. You would still be free to seek your own (just like the oil sheiks who used to come to the U.S. for medical care); unlike them, you would have paid, and would continue to pay averaged insurance premiums, with government help if needed.

Excellent health care providers in many other countries have created a competitve marketplace. However, when a teacher in the United States has students who hold bake sales to pay for her breast cancer treatment after her coverage runs out, ask yourself who's to blame? Your lawmakers? "Greedy" insurance companies?? Those healthy people who don't, or can't, afford insurance to average out the cost?? The dishonest political deal makers who have THEIR "socialized medicine" paid directly by YOUR taxes??

When the plan for all of us is enacted, we must safeguard it from greed and abuse. Remove elected legislators who use the funds for other purposes--or better, give them jail time and real public service sentences if this national trust for a United States of America health plan is not managed honestly. Note the history of funds that are shuffled when not instantly spent: for a capitalist economy, raiding reserves and profligate spending are neither liberal nor conservative--merely dishonest.

I remember the outrage when "wife-of" President Bill Clinton was asked to work to design a health care plan for all, that had never before existed; scare tactics and irrelevant attacks were launched. Her approach was to call together representatives from all the related fields: caregivers, insurers, medical facilities, legislators, and the public. Before any progress could begin, outcry against that pushy female prevented any fair appraisal. Quietly and effectively, she has continued to work and learn and seek your input and help.

Ask yourself whether you've done your homework before you oppose or support any issue. Go to the source; watch the Congressional hearings; and study how plans work in other countries, compared to what happens in the U.S.

Consider what you will do--with the unique abilities and capabilities you have--when major illness strikes, or your employer simply can't afford to support your medical plan any longer (and you can't, either)?

And how do you feel when one of the millions of government employees in this country receives instant and excellent care that you or your dependents can't afford? Do you shake your head philosophically, and say, "Well, that's just the American way!"

Or will you look at history, and realize that it's royalty's way...where those born to privilege, or serving it, are presumably God's chosen few, and the choicest of necessities and desirable things are to be provided to them--by you.

I believe the candidate best qualified to protect our values, and to revise conditions that harm and contradict our expressed ideals is running in a pivotal election. Why would you choose an older guy, or the nice kid, when you have someone who has lived public service and dealt with domestic upheaval, with outstanding success on both fronts? Toughness in withstanding scrutiny is equalled by her skill in meeting complex challenges.

Mandating Health insurance isn't a good idea.

JoAnne of Az,

Hillary's plan would have probably make the cut if she hadn't mandated it. But she did, and that took away the incentive to lower cost. Since it would be a requirement, all that the heathcare provider/insurance companies would say is, give them subsidies to offset the high cost. People still won't be able to afford it because the cost will continue to grow.

What is Hillary considering? Tax break for employees to subsidize the high cost. Let say IRS lowers your Total income by $1200 for a $12,000 a year insurance, when your out of pcket cost cost including your deductible is around $7400. You do the math. That will not get you anywhere.

Let's consider what mandate means.

Take auto insurance for example. Most states in the union mandated auto insurance, and state of IL being one. The insurance companies raised the premium by over 40% within first two years after the law was enacted. That was a little over 12 years ago. Since then, the premium has continued to climb and there is nothing anyone could do stop it. There is no reason to lower the cost, but there is always a reason to raise it.

What I pay for insurance today is almost half the car note, even with all the breaks I get, compared to before the mandate.

This is simple. It is the law of supply and demand. The more people want or need it, the higher the cost. It applies to auto insurance, it applies to gas and fuel, and it will apply to health insurance. No matter how palatable this idea may be, the historical data for mandates shows higher cost in relationship to the demand.

She cannot pass a law to cap the cost since that will intere with free market. Besides, the republican won't let her even if she tries.

Mandating Health insurance is a very bad idea.

Mandated Health Insurance

One more thing to my earlier comment.

I wonder what would happen to all those individuals that the health insurance company have termed uninsurable because of existing illness.

If health insurance is mandated, those people would still fall thru the crack, because the cost to insure them will be too high. Even with subsidy, it will not be affordable.

Mandated health insurace is and will remain a very bad idea!

Harry and April, great points!

I don't want to get into Hillary bashing, but I simply don't see how her plan changes anything. The first point in Obama's plan "Create a five-star rating system for credit cards so consumers have a better sense of the fees and rates associated with each card. Card companies would have to display their star ratings with their application materials" doesn't seem like much, but it would arm consumers with knowledge, which is power.

For those of you who are convinced Obama has nothing to offer, if you haven't already, check out his Blueprint for Change on his website. You just might see him differently.

I think one thing we all need to be aware of is that, when we want to know the specifics of a candidate's platform, we need to do the research ourselves. We won't get much from TV media, so we need to do the research ourselves. Just-the-facts blog entries like this one are an ideal way to get a snapshot of what a candidate wants to accomplish.

After close and thorough scrutiny of the two plans I offer the following analysis:

With small exceptions, Obama's and Clinton's plans are the same -- only Obama has paragraphs and Clinton uses bullet points.

Hilliary's Credit Card solution

Hilliary wants a MORE Government ("Clinton's proposal creates a new government commission..") and MORE Government regulation ("Increase government regulation of credit cards ..).

That pretty well says if for me.

Paul nailed to problem on the head for me too.

I would like to see the details of the Obama 5 star rating system. While I appreciate brevity, in this case I need more data.

However, I must add the caveat that my life plan includes getting rid of my credit cards and never looking back. So whatever happens I will continue to consider credit card companies the enemy and to be dealt with as such.

Some stats over Healthcare Policy

I completely agree with Edward (from IL) over the mandated proposal on health insurance set forward by HRC.

Secondly, I would like to add one more point over why this idea will fail to address the masses:

The following are facts that are posted on http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml and here’s what it says:

Who are the uninsured?

• Nearly 47 million Americans, or 16 percent of the population, were without health insurance in 2005, the latest government data available (1).

• The number of uninsured rose 1.3 million between 2004 and 2005 and has increased by almost 7 million people since 2000 (1).

• The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens (2).

• The increase in the number of uninsured in 2005 was focused among working age adults. The percentage of working adults (18 to 64) who had no health coverage climbed from 18.5 percent in 2004 to 20.5 percent in 2005 -- an increase of over 800,000 uninsured workers (1). Nearly one (1) million full-time workers lost their health insurance in 2005.

• Nearly 82 million people – about one-third of the population below the age of 65 spent a portion of either 2002 or 2003 without health coverage (3).

• Over 8 in 10 uninsured people came from working families – almost 70 percent from families with one or more full-time workers and 11 percent from families with part-time workers (2).

• The percentage of people (workers and dependents) with employment-based health insurance has dropped from 70 percent in 1987 to 59.5 percent in 2005. This is the lowest level of employment-based insurance coverage in more than a decade (4, 5).

• In 2005, nearly 15 percent of employees had no employer-sponsored health coverage available to them, either through their own job or through a family member (6).

• In 2005, 27.4 million workers were uninsured because not all businesses offer health benefits, not all workers qualify for coverage and many employees cannot afford their share of the health insurance premium even when coverage is at their fingertips (1).

• The number of uninsured children in 2005 was 8.3 million – or 11.2 percent of all children in the U.S. (1). The number of children who are uninsured increased by nearly 400,000 in 2005, breaking a trend of steady declines over the last five years.

• Young adults (18-to-24 years old) remained the least likely of any age group to have health insurance in 2005 – 30.6 percent of this group did not have health insurance (1).

• Based on a three year average (2003-2005), people of Hispanic origin were the least likely to have health insurance. An average of 32.6 percent of Hispanics were without health insurance during that period (1).

• Nearly 40 percent of the uninsured population reside in households that earn $50,000 or more (1). A growing number of middle-income families cannot afford health insurance payments even when coverage is offered by their employers.

Why is the number of uninsured people increasing?

• Millions of workers don't have the opportunity to get health coverage. A third of firms in the U.S. did not offer coverage in 2005 (4).

• Nearly two-fifths (38 percent) of all workers are employed in smaller businesses, where less than two-thirds of firms now offer health benefits to their employees (7). It is estimated that 266,000 companies dropped their health coverage between 2000-2005 and 90 percent of those firms have less than 25 employees.

• Rapidly rising health insurance premiums are the main reason cited by all small firms for not offering coverage. Health insurance premiums are rising at extraordinary rates. Over the past five years the average annual increase in inflation has been 2.5 percent while health insurance premiums for small firms have escalated an average of 12 percent annually (4).

• Even if employees are offered coverage on the job, they can't always afford their portion of the premium. Employee spending for health insurance coverage (employee's share of family coverage) has increased 143 percent between 2000 and 2006 (8).

• Losing a job, or quitting voluntarily, can mean losing affordable coverage – not only for the worker but also for their entire family. Only seven (7) percent of the unemployed can afford to pay for COBRA health insurance – the continuation of group coverage offered by their former employers. Premiums for this coverage average almost $700 a month for family coverage and $250 for individual coverage, a very high price given the average $1,100 monthly unemployment check (9).

• Coverage is unstable during life's transitions. A person's link to employer-sponsored coverage can also be cut by a change from full-time to part-time work, or self-employment, retirement or divorce (10).

And it’s very clear from the above report that people can’t afford to buy health insurance so mandating such costs that’s not affordable does not solve the problem for masses. But instead it gives them nightmare over how they are going to make those payments. Secondly, I’m not sure whether HRC has any plan for increasing the minimum wage before she mandates every one of the 47 million uninsured people to buy health insurance. Lastly, if you have looked at the above stats closely, it clearly states that the cost of health insurance been rising on an average of 12% ever yr. Now, instead of curbing the costs, how would a mandatory health insurance will help those who could not afford the premium now?

In comparison to HRC, I admire Obama’s approach to handle this issue by making health insurance affordable, which will lead to lowering the costs for everyone not just 47 million uninsured people. And most of all what matters to everyone is the co-pays, insurance premiums, cost of medicines, etc, thus just imposing a mandatory health insurance on people will get them covered but eventually will leave a big hole in their paychecks if the costs of these items are controlled or reduced.

Think wisely people, it’s not a question of universal healthcare but rather a question of how much damage it may cost on your paychecks in longer run.

Cheers!!

Credit cards and usury

While they're at it, how about a national usury law? Here in Arizona usury is legal.

That's why it was OK for Macy's to tack a $25.00 late payment charge on a $56.00 bill after the check I sent them went astray! After I talked to a supervisor, they did reverse the charge, but I closed my Macy's account anyway

Just A Question

Has anyone looked into the demographics of the white male independent voter,who seems to be an overwhelming Obama voter? It seems to me that they are trying to skew the nomination.

1 out of 4

<b>25% of all credit cards have at least 30% APR....

--Stop credit card companies from increasing rates without written consent</b>

Those who incur these high rates are not the enfranchised class.

Pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps mentality isn't a reasoned argument

when far too many people suffer on a day to day basis

and can't get on top of their bills. You fall behind on one payment,

you risk a higher rate. Actually, revolving credit companies can

increase the APR on your account for no stated reason

and at their own discretion.

Arguing economically disadvantaged consumers are the problem

doesn’t address the larger American consumer model, or even touch on the hardsell

from credit cards at dept stores like, “10% discount on your next purchase if you use

are line of credit!”.

Too often impulse and power of persuasion is used against the consumer,

all of which is completely legal. 33%APR is unreasonable and excessive.

30% is excessive, starting to lowering the cap on APR is the first step to reducing

the risk factor for our most vulnerable members of society.

..

There is nothing wrong with being morally righteous when developing business

practices. 25% of all credit cards are over 30%APR --look at the records.

In 2005, there was an amendment to cap credit rates at 30%, Obama voted against it.

-

Credit Card Reform

City Boy, you make a lot of sense. The subprime debacle underscores how little the average consumer understands about the contracts they sign when taking on debt. Some posters seem to pass moral judgment on consumers who don't understand or read the fine print. Can they tell us how many dollars credit card companies have spent on making their terms clear, concise and easy to understand versus how many dollars have been spent to make them obscure, illegible, unintelligible. The universal default clause, overlimit fees, interest on fees... those dire consequences are not made clear on the simplified direct response solitications sent to consumers. The sanctamonious arguments that some make regarding creditors who should know better: same thing said about smokers before the tobacco industry got whacked. Hopefully one day credit cards will carry written warnings: DO NOT USE THIS CARD WITHOUT FIRST CONSULTING AN ACCOUNTANT AND AN ATTORNEY. KNOW THAT USE OF THIS CARD MAY LOWER YOUR CREDIT RATING WHICH IN TURN WILL ALLOW ALL OF YOUR CREDITORS TO RAISE YOUR INTEREST RATES. KNOW THAT IF YOU ARE LATE ON ONE PAYMENT, NOT ONLY WILL YOU BE CHARGED A LATE FEE AND INTEREST ON THAT LATE FEE, BUT DUE TO A UNIVERSAL DEFAULT CLAUSE, EVERY OTHER CREDITOR YOU OWE WILL THEN BE ABLE TO JACK YOUR RATES UP HIGHER, WHICH WILL FURTHER LOWER YOUR CREDIT SCORE AND ALLOW ALL OF YOUR CREDITORS TO FURTHER RAISE YOUR INTEREST RATE. KNOW THAT THIS CREDIT ISSUER PAYS LOBBYISTS TO INFLUENCE YOUR GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES, WHOSE NAMES ARE __________________. DON'T CALL US, CALL THEM. HAVE A NICE DAY.

Credit Card Rates

Republicrats - bet you all sing a different tune (regardless whether you are red or blue) when the rates get jacked up for you. And I am positive that "ms/mr I've got mine, now try and get yours" lives in a big fancy house and has a beautiful car and is in debt up to the neck, even though most likely their dough was given to them.

Funny how those who work an earn their own money DO NOT want the little guy stomped on...

Experience?

How did all that Experience that Hillary had stop her from voting for a War that has been purely disastrous to the US economy?

Dick Cheney and Rumsfeild had resume's a mile long and look how things turned out under them!

You want experience? Check out why Hillary Clinton was the only First Lady ever indicted! yeah. And the Clinton administration had more scandels than Bush's had...I'm not for Bush no way...but Hillary will be more of the same ....trust me..

Experience

George W.Bush 2 did not have any experience to run the white House, and he got voted in twice because he had a good campaign, which he put fear in the American people. having them to believe that we were on a terror alerts. Red, green and amber, pretending to be the superhero; saving us from the terrorist. For eight years all America had in the White House was businessmen, who ran this country into more debt because of their greed for oil. But they didn't think it was going to be this hard or the war would last this long. So through your experience theory out the window its no such thing when you are the president. Your policies and decision making is most important. And we have already seen what Hillary and McCain decisions has put us in. Bush fooled them Also.