>We're subsidizing deadbeats in housing on the backs of the responsible, why should credit cards be any different?
>
>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.

Where else can you put your money and receive 1.5-3% back for the bank holding it for you (and hence using it) and yet be charged 21% for the same service when the bank loans you money.

Ha ha ha!

Looking at the Senate Bill, I don't see anything unreasonable:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30846334/

Before the arbitrary fees, service charges and rates were allowed, it was much normal for a credit card to only be issued to those with outstanding credit and for the rate to be 20%. Later over-charging those who were late with a payment allowed the banks to lower their rates for others. I don't see any problem with being charged a reasonable rate inside the 30days which is not done now. Basically, using your credit card to pay your bills and then paying those charges off at the end of the month, every month is using the bank's money for free. It technically allows you to play with your money for a month and spend the banks money.