will soon be parted, no matter what laws you pass. Is a predator a predator when the prey walks up and says "Please, sir, eat me."? If you pay off your balance each month, interest rates are not a problem. If you lose your job, so you "have" to use your credit card, your problem is unemployment, not predatory creditors.

There is no Constitutional right to low-interest credit, folks. The International Court of Human Rights has no jurisdiction here. How many of those poor victims used their credit cards to pay for wide-screen TVs and cell phones? You don't have to be Scrooge to know where the problem is here.

Amen. I have about 10 credit cards, but use only 1-2 regularly. Having a large amount of available credit, while only using a fraction of it, gives me a very high credit score. I take advantage of the various cash back benefits (not much but hey its something) but never send them a dime in interest.

Just because I CAN charge about 50K, it does not mean that I DO. I charge what I know I can pay off with my disposable income and never more.

The few times I did not pay off a full balance is when I had a 0% into APR, and bought some new furniture...but paid it off over a few months before the 0% APR expired.

Well how nice for you, Danny Deep Pockets...you must be a lackey for the credit card companies,,,,or the treasurer for the RNC,,,,or both.

While there's no right to low-interest credit, there used to laws against usury. States sold out consumers because credit card companies starting playing one state against the other, blackmailing legislatures to do away with usury laws or they'd relocate to a state not so squeamish.

There is no Constitutional right to low-interest credit, folks.

Who is arguing that there is? After all, if it were a constitutional right then there would be no need for Fed rules, or legislation for that matter.

But doesn't it seem a little odd that you can carry a balance at a certain rate--a rate you may have planned on and prepared for--and then if one payment is one day late, then the rate on your prior balance can be jacked up a dozen percentage points? Why can credit cards do this while practically no other lender (to my understanding) can do so?

The proposed rules and legislation do not prevent people who go into debt from getting what they deserve as a consequence. It seems to me that they apply proper expectations to consumer behavior, for instance that when you borrow money at a certain rate, then that rate is what you'll have to pay. Or that when you're paying off a debt and you have debts at different rates, that payment will pay off the debt at the higher rate first. (Why should the credit card company have any say in what debt gets paid off first?)