"You're talking about a government mandate on (formerly) private lending institutions. One that carries with it a price tag in the form of costs."

"Private lending institutions"…..are regulated by the federal goverment, how in the hell are they, then, "private lending institutions?"

The f*cking banking industry came, on their knees, with their hands out, begging for tax dollars. When they did this, they voluntarily gave up their claim to the "free market". What the hell is "free market" about a bailout?

Perhaps you should reread the Chase fine print I supplied. When a business relationship is only one-sided, when one participant makes all the rules and can change them at any time, for any reason…..there is no contract at all.

Finally, the banking industry, that you deem sacrosanct, nullifies your belief that there is no free lunch. That industry always gets a free lunch.

But you're wrong in your assertion that this discussion isn't over "free market" decisions (whatever point you were trying to make in this incoherent mashing of words). Of course it is. You're talking about a government mandate on (formerly) private lending institutions. One that carries with it a price tag in the form of costs. Good idea? Bad idea? Time will tell. But there's no such thing as a free lunch, and last I checked the economy was worsening.

You should acknowledge this in your rambling, nonsensical outbursts as the discussion moves forward.

King…I thought money was government secured notes. Banks sell money. Money issued by the government. The government has every right, then, to regulate the terms of those who sell their notes.

This discussion isn't over free market decisions. This discussion is about fidelity of contracts…..something you were enraged about when it was suggested that creditors of Big Banks should take a hit.

Nowhere did I say banks cannot be controlled, and how you ran off into saying that I don't believe in capitalism is a complete mystery. Those credit cards ARE capitalism. You don't have to use one. It's the consumer's choice. Nobody is forcing you. It's a free market decision.

Obama's goofy law will have the effect of making less money available for those who wish to borrow money.

Plus, you are a BLOGGER.

I don't think you believe in true capitalism, where competitiors go head to head. I think you have caved to the corporations-should-be-entitled-monopolies…way of thinking.

You sound like a lobbyist for the banking industry.

Here's what would happen if Bernie Sanders 15% rate ceiling was implemented:

The credit card companies would immediately charge everyone a large flat annual fee to use a credit card, then they would begin charging interest from the day of a credit card transaction. No more grace period. In addition, everybody's credit card would be changed to the highest 15% rate. Credit card access would also be restricted, with the lower income folks being squeezed out.

The feds have accepted, you know, on our behalf, the casino credit card industry just as it is.

Look at what the banks have done. Mortgage meltdown caused by binge gambling on toilet paper products that had no value. All leveraged, naturally.
Foreclosures all around and as far as the budget eye can see.

Student loans. These shark f*ckers parasite their asses into federal student loan program monies and strip hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of fees out of a system designed to educate our children.

Credit Cards. Tony Soprano style. Can't trust anything Credit Card Co. Tony says, either his word or his signature. That's the point I was trying to make. Yes, there are competitors….but it's simply a matter of which gang boss you make a deal with, really. The problems are systemic.

Once again….considering the above scorecard….21 Democrats voted with all but one Republican in the Senate to protect the banks from being forced to cap their credit card interst rates at 15%. You would think that the media would think that vote was important to it's audiences, but I guess not.

What's to stop some other bank that I chose instead of Chase from doing the same thing.

It seems to me that when you enter into a contract with a lender, you're agreeing to two main things: principle available and terms of interest/repayment. If the bank can change both of those whenever they want, what exactly are you contracting with them?

The post was not about borrowing money from Chase. The post was about the limp-dickness of Democrats in kissing the ass of tax payer bailed out banks….like Chase.