>>We're subsidizing deadbeats in housing on the backs of the responsible, why should credit cards be any different?
>
>Looked at another way the 'deadbeats' are subsidising you (and me): The credit card companies can only afford to give us free credit by gouging those who cannot pay in full with almost extortionate interest rates.

The deadbeats get the same benefits provided by the CC company, no subsidization there. If it was only the every-month payors then I'd agree with the analogy.

The new laws prevent CC companies from holding deadbeats to the Terms all cardholders already agreed to. They've forcibly changed the rules so now CC companies must react. Since they are to be limited on how they raise rates on the deadbeats, and must reset their rates 6 months following a minimum payment, the CCs now must find other ways to recoup those losses.

>Why would it not be fairer if everyone who used a credit card was charged a reasonable lower rate of interest from the time the purchase was made?

Wouldn't it be fairer to hold everyone accountable for their own actions, namely agreeing to the Terms and choosing to use the cards? Once again we're looking at big brother dictating to private business in the name of "fairness". Good grief!

>>http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/107096/Credit-Card-Industry-Aims-to-Profit-From-Sterling-Payers?sec=topStories&pos=7&asset=&ccode
>>
>>I sure am glad to see 95 senators get behind the concept of sucking up to deadbeat voters.