Lawmakers Propose Cap on Credit Card Interest Rates (businessinsider.com) 138
Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Anna Paulina Luna introduced bipartisan legislation in March to cap credit card interest rates at 10% annually as Americans' debt hits record levels. "Credit cards with high interest rates regularly trap working people in endless cycles of debt," Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement.
Credit card debt has reached $1.2 trillion in Q4 2024, up from $720 billion in the same quarter of 2004, according to Federal Reserve Bank of New York data. Average annual percentage rates nearly doubled to 21% in 2024 from 12% in 2003. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia reported a record number of cardholders making only minimum payments in Q3 2024, "showing signs of consumer stress."
Further reading: Study Reveals Why Credit Card Interest Rates Remain Stubbornly High.
Credit card debt has reached $1.2 trillion in Q4 2024, up from $720 billion in the same quarter of 2004, according to Federal Reserve Bank of New York data. Average annual percentage rates nearly doubled to 21% in 2024 from 12% in 2003. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia reported a record number of cardholders making only minimum payments in Q3 2024, "showing signs of consumer stress."
Further reading: Study Reveals Why Credit Card Interest Rates Remain Stubbornly High.
Interesting. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
And less per person, since population is up.
Probably partially because the rates are high enough that people are using other forms of credit.
CPI is a lie? (Score:5, Insightful)
Want to source that? Creating a price index is HARD, because everyone is spend their money in different ways, so there are always going to be relative gainers and relative losers compared to CPI. For example if you own your own home or have a long term mortgage at a fixed rate, then your housing costs, apart from property taxes, are totally fixed. If you're renting or facing a big jump in your mortgage rate, then your housing costs are a lot higher. Same with energy, food, transport, clothing and, for slashdotters tech prices. CPI is an attempt to average this experience, but obviously those whose costs are rising rapidly will feel it's showing too low a figure, etc. etc.
Economics is COMPLICATED. There's a reason why it's a university subject. The fact that too many believe they have enough understanding is always worrying...
Re:CPI is a lie? (Score:4, Interesting)
Want to source that? Creating a price index is HARD, because everyone is spend their money in different ways, so there are always going to be relative gainers and relative losers compared to CPI.
All true. I've heard any number of economists point out that CPI likely overstates inflation and PPI might be a better choice in some cases.
It really comes down to what you're using the deflator for. I'm not enough of an economist to say which is better in which cases.
Re: (Score:3)
Economics is COMPLICATED. There's a reason why it's a university subject. The fact that too many believe they have enough understanding is always worrying...
Economics is complicated because we make it complicated.
I always reflect back to the prominent economist who claimed back in 2007 that the world was entering into a new economics model, where people would merely refinance their homes to buy anything new, and would continue to do that essentially forever, because housing prices only go up. I spoke a "what the fskc!" as he ignored the simple facts. We don't live forever, and his formula had infinity in it, and reaching infinity very quickly. It was around th
Unfair to economics (Score:2)
I agree the guy who got it SO wrong in 2007 is a bad example. However the economic history of the 19th century was one of persistent booms and busts as business cycles cycled. The biggest bust, of course, was the Great Depression of the early 1930s. By contrast the economic history of the last 80 years has been one of unparalleled economic growth because we now know how to avoid having busts turn into major disasters; the events of 2008 would have seen a Depression level event if we didn't know how to keep
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, the poor credit companies. (Score:3, Interesting)
How will the poor credit companies continue to post record profits if they can't take advantage of those who have to use credit to take care of basics like healthcare and home repairs since our government insists on not doing anything to help the common man. This is so unfair to the banking industry. How dare these government officials try to do anything that might help the common man.
I'm sure this comment section will be filled with well reasoned responses about people using credit needing to change their ways, but sometimes you're stuck when emergencies happen because the economy has been geared to keep most of us hovering on the brink at all times. "Maximum capital extraction" is the name of the game for the business world, and our government enables that at every turn. Of course people end up using credit for emergencies in those situations because they have no choice. Dropping maximum interest rates to something reasonable would allow some of those folks to crawl out of the hole, or at least start seeing daylight again.
Re:Oh no, the poor credit companies. (Score:5, Insightful)
A 10% cap on interest means only the wealthy and folks with credit scores north of 750 will get a credit card. Not necessarily bad, but I can see folks bitching about how the poor are being frozen out of credit markets.
Re:Oh no, the poor credit companies. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It just means they get fleeced by different groups. At least a credit card can be discharged via bankruptcy, or not paying for four years. By locking people out of credit cards, it means more payday loans, or more auto loans that can't ever be paid off, which gets them in debt in other ways. If someone drives to an entry level job, and their car loses an alternator, what is to be done?
Overall, I will assert, it is expensive to be poor. Boots Law definitely holds true. Being able to get credit can be a
Re:Oh no, the poor credit companies. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Having been rather poor myself as a young man, I'd like to point out that having a bad option is better than having no option at all. You get rid of payday loans, then what? Then the poor are back to writing checks and trying to beat them back to the bank.
Re: (Score:2)
Having been rather poor myself as a young man, I'd like to point out that having a bad option is better than having no option at all. You get rid of payday loans, then what? Then the poor are back to writing checks and trying to beat them back to the bank.
I was poor as a young guy. There are other options than going into major debt. They worked for me, although I don't think most people have enough discipline. Kept my vehicles and furniture longer, I lived in a mobile home until I saved enough to buy a house and paid it off in a little over 14 years. That house was over 150 K less than Mrs Real estate agent wanted to sell me, I went through 4 of them for trying to upsell me to being house poor. One even told me I was a fool for not buying more house than I c
Re: (Score:2)
Pawn shops are generally much more closely regulated.
Re:Oh no, the poor credit companies. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is pretty insightful, but probably a politically unacceptable position to take (for AOC et. al., not for you). I can see people crying out against the nanny state already, even if it would be a good thing to not be handing out credit cards like they're debit carts.
Everyone saying you'll need a FICO of 700 - 750 just to get one... yeah I kinda wish it had been that way when I was a kid. I spent my 20s with thousands in credit card debt, I couldn't even tell you what I spent it on, because I was a young fool who wanted things and figured I could easily pay it back in a few months (which of course becomes a few years [which sometimes turns into a decade when your life doesn't take the path you predicted {but when does it ever?}]). It's not just poor people, but also young people who would most likely benefit from less access to high interest credit cards. But again... "Mah freedoms! Nanny state! Yadda yadda yadda"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Poor being locked out of the credit market ... may make them less poor
Many lower income individuals already do not have credit cards (many don't even have bank accounts, but that's a different discussion). For those who do have credit cards, they are often used for essentials, such as food. So take away the cards, and it means you don't eat at the end of the month. You might argue that not paying interest on a credit card would allow you to spend more money on food, but when you're hungry, you're hungry right now, and if it's eat or charge it, what would you choose?
Making c
Re: (Score:2)
Making credit more difficult to access for lower income individuals will also make it more difficult to escape poverty, because they will be unable to purchase a car or a home, and it may make it difficult for them to find liquidity needed when there are emergency expenses (such as a car repair or hospital bill).
Purchasing a home on a credit card or even making the down payment is the fast track to financial ruin.
Gotta plan better. I'm sure I'll enrage people, maybe get death threats, but there is a different way. As a kid that grew up in deep poverty, I should be the poster child for the idea it is impossible to get out of it. But there is a different way.
All I can ask is why the hate for a kid whose clothes came from relatives, grew up in the bad part of town, and who lived on surplus food? ( the precurser
Re: (Score:2)
Making credit more difficult to access for lower income individuals will also make it more difficult to escape poverty, because they will be unable to purchase a car or a home, and it may make it difficult for them to find liquidity needed when there are emergency expenses (such as a car repair or hospital bill).
Purchasing a home on a credit card or even making the down payment is the fast track to financial ruin.
Who said buy a car or house with a "credit card" - the OP said "credit", not "credit card" - having a credit card that you use responsibly is how you build up a good credit rating that you need before you try and borrow money for a car or home.
Ten Percent (10%) is way too low a cap on interest rates - aside from special introductory rates on new credit cards, does anyone actually have a 10% interest rate on their credit cards? I have a decent/good credit rating and I've not seen an offer under 19% for the l
Re: (Score:2)
If you need a credit card to eat, you have an immediately problem to fix. One that paying interest isn't going to help you with.
Re: (Score:2)
Poor being locked out of the credit market ... may make them less poor
Maybe. I assume they're not dumb and would pay cash if they thought it in their best interest. Since many people don't, I'm going to trust they have good reasons for borrowing. Personally I figured out that paying credit card interest was a losing game and can't remember the last time I didn't pay my bill in full (but I'm lucky enough that I haven't had to worry about cash flow for a number of years).
I'm with the grandpost: capping interest rates will just make credit cards impossible to get unless you have
Re: (Score:2)
Credit cards are a really tempting resource to abuse. Having $2000 in credit available feels like having $2000 in hand. You can just buy that thing you want.
Anyone in the situation can just step back and think it over logically, but there's a whole lot of, "Well, it's only $5, I can pay that off," that goes on. Both the dumb and the smart can get sucked in, because the problem originates with emotion, rather than reason. We want the King to be in charge, but for many people, it's the Wolf.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. Depends on why they are poor. Some are poor because they make poor financial choices, some are poor because they were born that way and haven't crawled out of it, and some are poor because they fell on some bad luck. The credit market offers a way to potentially get out of a rut by investing with future income.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Poor being locked out of the credit market ... may make them less poor
Until they can't drive to work because they lack credit to pay for an unsecured credit card to pay for a needed car repair?
Credit is a tool, when used correctly, can help people navigate issues in their life.
Capping interest rates will limit access to credit by lower-income/poor credit risk individuals - yes, 20% interest rates are abusive, but when you have to pay for a significant, un-planned expense, the issue becomes access to credit, and a lack of credit can complicate their problems.
Should interest ra
Re: (Score:3)
This was exactly what I was going to say. The interest rate on a card is proportional to the perceived risk of the debtor. If they aren't allowed to set interest rates high enough to offset that risk, they simply will not take on the risk.
Great solution!
Re: (Score:2)
Check that Further Reading link. Turns out those with good credit get to subsidize those that default.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh no, the poor credit companies. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Oh no, the poor credit companies. (Score:2)
You're talking about out ENTIRELY different lines of business. Card association transaction fees have fuck-all to do with other costs associated with a merchant account like the terminals, etc, and have absolute-fuck-all to do with fees and charges associated with credit accounts.
Obviously you can open a line of credit without a Visa or any card. The acquiring hardware/terminal has its own associated costs. A debit card has nothing to do with credit and transacts on the same network, etc.
Transaction fees pa
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. Merchants still get dinged a few percentage of each sale when someone uses a card, so the credit card companies are not exactly going to go out of business if someone pays their stuff on time. Then there are all the fees like chargebacks and such.
Of course, from what I know, it can be an "annoyance". I wonder if one of the reasons that the current underwriters of the Apple Card are wanting to get out from it is because often the card tends to be used for stuff, and paid off immediately, as oppos
Re:Oh no, the poor credit companies. (Score:5, Insightful)
This was exactly what I was going to say. The interest rate on a card is proportional to the perceived risk of the debtor.
No, it's not. The interest rate on a card is proportional to the perceived how much the credit card company thinks it can get away with.
Just discussed right here: https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It's not either/or.
Re: (Score:3)
Lets see, my credit score is currently 850, my bank CC's interest rate is 20.99%, and my bank LoC's interest rate is 6.45%.
So, no, Credit Card interest rates actually have nothing to do with 'perceived risk of the debtor.' If it did, my CC would also be at 6.45%.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not my fault if you signed on for a shitty credit card. Read the terms before submitting the application.
Exactly zero of my credit cards have an interest rate anywhere close to 20% because I'm not signing up for shitty deals, regardless of my 800+ credit score.
Re:Oh no, the poor credit companies. (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it? See Trump's words at his campaign rally n Uniondale, N.Y. 09/18/2024: “We’re going to put a temporary cap on credit card interest rates. We’re going to cap it around ten percent. We can’t let them make 25 and 30 precent.”
Re: (Score:2)
So AOC is taking her cue from Trump? Really?
I noticed Trump said "temporary", is that what AOC is planning?
Re: Oh no, the poor credit companies. (Score:2)
From her press release about the legislation introduced: "During his campaign, President Trump pledged to cap credit card interest rates at 10%. We're making that pledge more than a talking point by introducing legislation to protect working people from remaining trapped under mountains of debt,â said Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
So yes. Taking her cue fro
Re:Oh no, the poor credit companies. (Score:5, Interesting)
10% definitely seems pretty low to me.
Even with good credit and income, I expect unsecured debt to be around 12%. We had a year with 9% inflation recently, good luck getting adjustable rate unsecured credit at 1% over inflation.
If I were to make a protect people policy around this, I would instead make a policy that minimum payments must pay down the card in x number of years (1 or 2). This would keep people's balances lower because though would get approved for as large a cap.
If one needs more than 2 years to pay off a purchase, go get a term loan.
I'd probably do something similar for payday loans too. Basically make it a requirement that each payment reduces the principal by some defined percent (even if it's only 1%).
Re: (Score:2)
Just yesterday I happened to take a good look at the most recent statement for one of my CCs. On it, there was a section that told me that if I stopped using that card and paid it off with only the minimum monthly payment it would take 14 years to pay it
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when the person can't afford this new minimum payment amount?
Example, I lose my job. I need to finance life for a bit till I get my next job. Yes, I should have backup savings, but most people don't. I take out debt on a credit card because I can afford the $300 minimum payment because I can use some of the 10k cash out on that payment. But if that payment is $800+ a month because I my minimum payment period is 1 year, I might not be able to afford that.
Sometimes if you are broke, having a low
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen some research showing these downsides. It makes sense in a lot of ways. Someone who gets into $10k of credit card debt at 30% might end up with a loan at even higher effective rates (with fees and stuff) from a cash advance/pawn shop. I'm not sure if I entirely believe it because it takes a lot more effort and intention to get a cash advance than to use a credit card.
Even still, the fact that there are some examples of this negative outcome means that we should probably gradually reduce credit
Re: Oh no, the poor credit companies. (Score:3)
The Cycle (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A 10% cap on interest means only the wealthy and folks with credit scores north of 750 will get a credit card. Not necessarily bad, but I can see folks bitching about how the poor are being frozen out of credit markets.
Want to see what will happen to people that can't get credit cards? Go to the ghetto. Look at all the check cashing and "E-Z Money!" title loan places. Legalized loan sharking that makes credit card rates look gentle. THAT is what will happen to people that can't get a Visa or Mastercard. They'll end up paying more money and get further in debt and at higher rates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For large purchases, one might consider personal loans, which have interest rates significantly lower than that. For example, replacing my A/C unit, most of it will be paid in cash from savings, but a bit will be done via a personal loan at well under 20%, which will get paid off fairly quickly. When interest rates go back to lower levels, I'll refinance, and if any balance of that loan outstanding, I'll just fold that into the mortgage.
Re: (Score:3)
A 10% cap on interest means only the wealthy and folks with credit scores north of 750 will get a credit card. Not necessarily bad, but I can see folks bitching about how the poor are being frozen out of credit markets.
Or the cards for people with low credit will just charge annual fees instead. Which is actually worse - at least you can normally avoid the interest by keeping it paid off, but you can't avoid the fees.
The only thing that we know for sure is that the companies won't accept at hit to their profits.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the people with less than stellar credit will have limits of $200.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
The government's primary job is to take care of 3 things: defense, criminal law, and civil law. That's the bare minimum to run a country, and I would argue that the US has these three things covered 100% (and defense at about 300%). Everything above that is optional, and isn't really the choice of the government, but the choice of the people in what they, collectively, want to fund from taxpayer dollars. So when you say "our government insists on not doing anything to help the common man," that's incorrect. The correct statement is, "the majority of the American people have collectively decided not to do as much as *you* would like to forcibly take money from some people and redistribute it to other people." After all, the common man is free to do home repairs if he likes. The idea of collecting a bunch of money from everyone else to then pay someone to come and fix your house... sure, that sounds good for you, but maybe not to the rest of the people. But keep living in your fantasy land where you never have to think about where stuff actually comes from.
This argument of yours falls apart pretty egregiously when it comes to big business being handed money to do more than just operate. Hell, sometimes they even get our money handed to them just to set up shop. I'm more of the mind that *IF* our government is going to insist on shoveling money at the business sector every few months, perhaps it's time they shovel just a tiny portion of that same money back at the people who pay into their coffers. Or they could stop shoveling massive piles of cash at the busi
Capping is never a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I'm all for limiting and lowering as I feel these credit cards have become predatory, but capping never works. That's basic economic shit, but we've always known that most of those in politics don't understand economics.
Instead keep in x amount of % points over the fed funds rate and set it similarly as mortgage rates. It will go up and down with interest rates.
I know we feel as if we will never see over 10% rates ever again, but heaven forbid we be forward thinking with our rules. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Now I'm all for limiting and lowering as I feel these credit cards have become predatory, but capping never works.
Up until 1978, the U.S. had usury laws which did exactly that. As far as I can tell, the US economy worked..
historical information here: https://www.nasdaq.com/article... [nasdaq.com]
Re: (Score:3)
What exactly is your point?
You stated "capping never works." I posted that state usury laws did, in fact, cap interest rates until 1978, and gave a reference [nasdaq.com].
You talk about high interest rates "in the early 80's." That has no bearing on interest rates before 1978 (in fact, your link shows interest rates jumping after 1978). Second, since you didn't compare these rates with the cap set by usury laws, I don't even know why this is relevant.
From what I can see, capping before 1978 worked. Your data from the 1
Paying bills is for suckers (Score:2)
If the president doesn't have to pay his bills then why should I?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but no (Score:2)
I like my rewards. I am a responsible individual. I do not want them taken away because others make bad decisions.
Are they predatory? Sure. But you will not solve anything by doing this - you will only hurt those who can control their spending habits.
It will never happen... (Score:2)
... at least not under this administration. Regardless of its merits - and I have my doubts about those - this legislation will never be passed by the politicians who moved to kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The interest rate shouldn't be hardcoded (Score:2)
Indexing tends to make for laws that remain more relevant. Considering that she is proposing 10% at a time that the prime rate (PR) is 7.5%, that puts her target between 1.25*PR and 1.5*PR.
There may be a cause for discussing the exact multiplier, but things like this should be linked to some index.
CFPB who? (Score:2)
In TrumpWorld, this is sadly ironic.
Suppy/Demand (Score:3)
So when the prime rate goes up and the CCs interest rate hits their cap, the result is that credit dries up. We really need politicians to complete a class in economics before being allowed to run for office.
Re: (Score:2)
Financial management by drunks has never been notable.
Watch it there! Someone once accused a political party of spending money "like a drunken sailor". In the next week's editorial column, an individual wrote in, identifying himself as an ex drunken sailor and taking offense. "When we ran out of money, we stopped drinking."
not the interest rates (Score:2)
Cut the swipe fees to 1% with a maximum cap per transaction say $5.
That would do us all some good.
Wrong. (Score:2)
If you want to prevent people from going into debt they can't get out of, it doesn't help to make it easier to get into debt. The real purpose here is to screw the banks.
If they really wanted to help people avoid getting into debt, they would rein in the ability of the credit card banks to extend credit to people who won't be able to pay it back.
Re: (Score:3)
"Screw the banks"? Credit card interest rates *used* to be far lower... and, IIRC, the card I have from a credit union is 9%, not the 25% that the big banks charge.
No, the purpose is to fight back against the gouging banks with their MBAs demands for eternally-increasing profits.
Any cap that is not floating is dead (Score:2)
Don't make a law against rates... (Score:2)
Business is business, keep the regulators out of it - HOWEVER, make law against the ability to charge interest on interest. You have debt? then you have interest as a separate line item that can't itself have interest charged on it!
Make swipe fees a line item damn-it. (Score:2)
Interest rate matters less when the customer can be informed of the true cost for using that card.
And cash payers can finally stop helping subsidize the credit card middleman.
Re: (Score:2)
Interest rate matters less when the customer can be informed of the true cost for using that card.
True. I pay zero interest. Because, other than as a convenience, I always have the money in the bank to pay for my purchases. Credit cards also offer some (legally mandated) protections that debit cards do not. So the interest rates don't affect me.
Ideally, I'd like to see all CC users cover their own expenses, including those quietly paid by retailers now. But if you plug every loophole, credit cards will become unprofitable for the banks. And they'll stop offering them. That will just move us to an all c
Cost of cash back rewards (Score:2)
The only benefit of
The market will change (Score:2)
And CC companies will do away with perks and other bonuses, they'll also start biking you for that credit card
Need more competition, right? (Score:2)
If they're predatory, then why can't less predatory people step in?
What prevents better lending?
Re: (Score:2)
On average, would low income/high-risk borrowers be worse off if they can't easily get uncollateralized loans?
For every single corner case where a credit card saved someone hardship, there's a hundred who fall into it. Buying on credit is an addiction.
Re: Dumbest idea today (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean I guess it's good press to propose things that aren't going to go anywhere and I'd be okay with it if they were doing effective things in the meanwhile but they absolutely are not.
The date of enactment [congress.gov] is set to January 1st, 2031, so even if it passed this bill is meaningless for more than half a decade.
There's also the 7-hour wait times to vote in left leading districts of Pennsylvania.
It's interesting that, in the US, the actual mechanism of voting is controlled not by the federal or state governments, but by county election commissions. So "left leaning" districts with long lines are typically self inflicted--they are the cause of and have the power to resolve these issues, the problems are not (usually) imposed by evil republicans lurking in the shadows. This i
Re:Pissing in the wind (Score:5, Insightful)
It's interesting that, in the US, the actual mechanism of voting is controlled not by the federal or state governments, but by county election commissions. So "left leaning" districts with long lines are typically self inflicted--they are the cause of and have the power to resolve these issues, the problems are not (usually) imposed by evil republicans lurking in the shadows.
People shitting their pants and claiming fraud is just th left whining about the same thing the Republicans shit their pants about in 2000. So somehow everything went topsy turvy, and the Republicans wrestled the vote into corruption when the Democrats corrupted the voting process the previous election.
Anyhow, in my voting precinct in PA, it is almost 100 percent Democrat. I waited maybe 2 minutes to sigh in, and was out in 5.
None of my feirnds want to believe me, but the reasons Cheeto won were not because of voter suppression. I've reported my investigation into why the were curb stomped in 2024 in depth. But in the interests of brevity, lets just say they went a little nuts during the 4 years that Biden was in office at the state level, and it went so far left and so irrational that people revolted. They marched to the orders of far left academics while abandoning their core constituents. A lot of regular democrats said the party did not reflect their values, and the Republicans took that and ran with it.
Re:They're not "self inflicted" (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to dig deeper to understand. The control of the voting machines is controlled hire up. They distribute too few or broken machines to those districts.
If you dig deeper, you find out this is not true. Almost every state, Pennsylvania included, leave it to individual counties to purchase, maintain and deploy voting machines. In PA the state is responsible for validating vendors and certifying particular voting systems for use in the state. State also does inspections on voting machines to ensure they have not been tampered with. The counties themselves actually pick which approved system to purchase, spend the money and enact the labor that allows voting. If a district had insufficient capabilities to handle voter turnout, then it is 100% on the district.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize you do not do your causes any favors by imagining a different color of the sky and making wildly inaccurate statements out of thin air? It makes people to the left look like nutters. With Trump in office all you have to do is *not* look like nutters and you will do well. Is it that high of a bar to clear?
Googling gave me the names of locations in PA with reports of long voter delays in the last election. Gonna type them here and start googling their county leadership.
Chester 2D 1R
Luzerne
Re: (Score:2)
I have seen you post a lot of crazy shit over the years, but the above takes the cake.
Again, the stuff you are complaining about is controlled by the county election commissions. There is no "higher up" that is limiting access to machines or deciding how many polling locations are in the district. This is, again, decided by the county election commissions--so if you find "entire cities with 1 polling location" then you need look no further than the color on the map in those precincts to determine whose fa
Re: (Score:2)
The local ladies who hand you your ballot aren't the ones who decide where the voting machines go.
They are indeed not, and I never claimed they were. They do, however, work directly for the people who decide where the voting machines go, who are either elected or appointed officials of the county in question. Not some nebulous "higher up" that you keep referring to.
Eventually you're going to disagree with the Republicans you keep voting for.
I've disagreed with the republicans on numerous issues for decades. The last republican presidential candidate I voted for was GWB in 2000 when he ran for his first term. Plenty of them are batshit crazy, and the only republicans I voted for
Re: (Score:3)
I've been posting here with this account and this account only for two and a half decades. I don't have alts, never have, and never will.
They are illegally sending broken or two few voting machines to blue districts
What part of "the county election commissions are responsible for polling locations and equipment" are you having difficulty understanding? Don't bother responding, I've got to agree with the guy above in that you're just a troll.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're complaining that Democrat controlled state was suppressing it's own vote?
I suppose they have to come up with a story to claim victimhood in their beatdown.
Try coming back to the center Dems - that makes more sense that using the same whining the republicans used 4 years ago
Rehashing a new version of "Find me 11,781 votes" is old and bitter, and just trying to find a pretend reason why the Democrats made history, and took a slam dunk and turned into a curb stomping.
And before the Dems send me death threats, I voted Harris/Walz. I'm just not delusional.
Re: (Score:2)
There is rock solid evidence that 3 and 1/2 million voters were prevented from voting last year by suppression tactics.
This again?
I'm assuming you pay close enough attention to politics to know the results of Florida's special election yesterday. Both Republican candidates won. They didn't win because of some conspiracy theory you're clinging to as coping mechanism, they won because "Team R" is more popular in those areas. Hell, you can just drive around those towns and it'll become abundantly clear you're in MAGA country.
When people bitch about how ineffective the Democrats are this is what they mean.
You're so close to almost getting it. The Democrats can't put up a fight, can't run a campaign to s
Re: (Score:2)
You post had zero to do with the article. Stay on topic for crying out loud.
Re: (Score:2)
So, are you being paid for this propaganda? Explain why you oppose limiting the interest rates on credit cards (say, to no more than 9% more than the prime), instead of approaching mob interest rates (I understand the Mafia only wants 30%).
Re: (Score:2)
I oppose it because it just means that half of Americans will no longer have access to credit cards. Which is probably better for them, but hardly freedom improving.
Re: (Score:2)
What I see is just like the republicans there will always be conspiracy theorist that believe their side was cheated if they lose. And cherry picking your examples is bad logic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It works like this: most people aren't voting for a candidate so much as they're voting against one. If you risk your vote on a third party, that increases the chances of the guy you don't want winning. Given that dynamic, third parties usually can't get more than a rounding error in votes.
Everybody says they'd like another alternative. But when they get it, they won't vote for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Simply seize the center and drop the woke nonsense
And precisely what "woke nonsense" do you suggest they drop? Be very specific.
Re:Also free beer? (Score:5, Insightful)
- Racist and sexist DEI for jobs,
- Racist and sexist DEI for college admissions,
- Men in women's sports.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You see, but that's where you're wrong. You are in the extreme minority like it or not, believe it or not. Pretending it's not true is exactly the problem. Here are the numbers from a New York Times poll:
Approximately 79% of Americans oppose allowing transgender girls (biological males) to compete in girls' sports, according to a recent poll. This sentiment is shared across various political affiliations, with 94% of Republicans and 67% of Democrats expressing opposition.
https://www.thecentersquare.co... [thecentersquare.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I came here to post that, no more credit cards for poor people.
Which is actually a good thing.
Credit cards are just too damn tempting when you don't have enough money.
Which leads to debt and even less money.
Re: (Score:2)
Credit cards would just outright die.
All the upsides of credit cards (charge back, cash back, etc) are paid for by people who are stupid with money, the ones who roll over debt. If rich people actually had to pay for those services, they wouldn't find them worth it.