It is long overdue that they fix this. Give you best example I can think of my parents have 3 cards never missed a payment then the cards all jacked up their interest 3 fold and cuased them to not be able to meet the interest requirements for this and now are trying to get that debt settlement deal. So if you pay on time and always in good balance they can screw you wheres the fairness in that? Also it kind of makes your credit score impossible to figure out because it originates from guess where credit companys. They have many shadey practices at these companys that need to be open deals in the light so we know exauctly whats going on.

Credit card companies are the financial equivalent of crack dealers. Anything that they say about regulation should be taken for the self-serving nonsense that it is. . . .

Way long overdue. Until Clinton deregulated the banking industry, we had at least some protections against usury. Unless we were stupid and went to a loan shark, we could be relatively certain that the rate was going to be limited and unchanging. Now, your neighborhood loan shark is legal and has a big sign over the door, or they issue you a legal credit card and use it to take everything you own.

Thanks for asking this Q. Not only is reform long overdue, but under some circumstances, credit card companies might be charged under Federal Racketeering laws. Why would I say that? Most credit card companies want to sell consumers some kind of "ID/Fraud Protection" insurance. This is not something new; I heard about this 6 or 7 years ago. The service costs anywhere between $10 to $25 month. Now, please don't take this the wrong way; some consumers simply do not want to be bothered with the details of taking care of their own personal business and will happily pay someone to watch that biz for them. Fine. However, when credit card companies ignore a consumers requests to stop sending sensitive material in the US Mail, they are continuing to compromise the security of a customers ID, So Sec #, and they are subjecting the consumer to potential risk. It is this risk, which the companies impose, that is the very thing they wish to sell us protection against. By legal federal definition, that is racketeering. When we agree to the terms that a credit card company gives us, for money they are fronting to us, with interest, we imply that we take responsibility for any credit we might use. That responsibility extends to keeping current with changes, understanding interest and how it is accrued, understanding the basic TERMS, or semanitcs involved in a credit account. It doesn't matter if you don't really understand those terms, by signing your name, you've agreed to them. As consumers, we are held to the terms of any contract we might sign - legally. Yet, as providers of credit, the companies that serve the consumer has no limits set on the changes they may implement in regards to an account. This is the fine print at the end of the contract that most people neglect to read. Our behavior, our very history of credit is what ranks us, or gives us credit worthiness within the financial system. If we pay as agreed, do not use credit as a means of survival, if we have stellar credit history, we are rewarded with an algorhythmic number, our "credit score", which allows other creditors to assess our debt to income ratio, and our risk potential. It is the same credit card companies who affect your credit score - and it is you and how you do your personal business. However, recently, CC companies and the banks that they are, have been determined to not have cash reserves to cover the amount of credit they have promised to extend to consumers (in credit cards, in home and auto loans). In order to generate more cash to back up bad loans, banks are now reducing credit lines. If a consumer is given credit, say $10,000 on a line of credit, and they do not need that much credit, the consumer can ask the bank to reduce the credit line. In the past, that request could result in a lowering of your credit score. Now, with banks being less liquid, and lowering credit limits, it stands to reason that an individuals credit score will be lowered with the amount of credit a bank may extend to them. This is a complex explanation, but: banks make the rules by which we can 'play' in the realm of credit. Our "play" history determines our worthiness. Got it? So if banks are now reducing the amounts of our credit limits, doesn't it reason that they now have the power to determine that we are all less 'credit worthy' and lower our credit scores? Banks will tell you "no", that THEIR business actions do not determine YOUR credit score. But I can't find one insider who doesn't think this is Bullshit and that even people with GREAT credit history will show signs of stress on their credit scores.

Personally I like this idea.I admit I thought of it...lol.So I guess I am bias.I am for some type of reform.I do think however if he were going to charge ahead with reform.He could have done a GM style of reform.If you take the cash from the government.Rates and fees have to go.Is My opinion.Doesnt make it right or wrong.Just Mine.

You've got lots of good answers. I only add that if a corporation, rich guy, or big business is against it, I'm for it. They are ruthless. I don't believe ANYTHING they say.

Whatever the credit card industry is for the consumer should be against.