The Right to Fleece Preserved
May 20th, 2010 by David Anderson
We can all breath a sigh of relief. The right to fleece credit card consumers with sky high rates has been preserved. This is a positive for Delaware and South Dakota which have no limits on interest rates. This policy has attracted many credit card companies and tens of thousands of jobs.
I support the right to fleece the unwise. It expands credit and helps people who need it if they are wise enough to use the system instead of being abused by it. I think the best way to regulate rates is the market. Refuse to be fleeced. Pay off your cards within weeks not years of a charge. Cutting off available credit and restricting it to the few again in the name of consumer protection is not the answer. Government regulation would cause more harm than good.
The amendment would have allowed every state to set a maximum interest rate. If you are dealing with an in state bank dealing with in state customers, that is reasonable. This is a matter of interstate commerce. That should not run the gauntlet of 50 different regulations always changing. It should be governed by the rules of the home state and any federal regulation. That was the point of establishing the American free trade zone under the Constitution.
The answer to the fleece is not to carry a lot of debt. I refuse to carry more than I can pay off quickly. You should be able to pay off your debt within 30 days. Be a wise consumer that will force the banks to treat you right. We don’t need government telling them that they can fleece us at 18% but 19% is too far. Take control of your destiny and by saving instead of borrowing.
“I support the right to fleece the unwise.”
Of course you do, because the GOP’s America is a “survival of the fittest” style crucible based on an Ayne Randian snuff film in which cripples and retards are thrown into the ovens and anything having to do with community or public welfare can be derided as socialism.
I’m pretty sure the Spanish Inquisition created a lot jobs, too. That didn’t make it right. After all, to avoid it all people had to do was avoid being accused of heresy.
Even Kaufman went with defeating the amendment. He, who often swats away the concerns that his overhaul-view would cause many DE jobs to evaporate, sent this amendment packing. Considering his record so far, his action alone makes me wonder if he saw that (job loss) as a very real concern with this one. Of course, it could have been for different reasons, but in his case, I can’t see what that would be. So, it’s easy to say “too bad, work somewhere else,” but when Kaufman goes against something like this, it should at least make you wonder why.
Is that supposed to be a serious comment from Trust Fund? Seriously?
‘The right to fleece’…some people call it usury.