Credit card debt hits new record, raising warning sign

And what's your point? Who picks up the tab now? If a person spends everything and ends up poor the taxpayer pays. If the person gets credit and over spends and then files bankruptcy other consumers pay. In the end we are all consumers and many of us are taxpayers and we pay for ourselves and everyone who does not pay for themselves.

What do you suggest we do?

 

Trump's fixing all this.

Trump cracks the whip on leftwing CFPB

Elizabeth Warren's brainchild for extending Democratic Party rule indefinitely is finally getting the crackdown it needs

 

Haha, do you REALLY think that destroying the consumer protection agency, leading to LESS oversight of bank lending practices, will result in LESS consumer credit debt?

All I see is another attempt at financial deregulation, exactly what led to the previous financial crisis. What could possibly go wrong if credit card companies will have more freedom to defraud unsuspecting customers?

 

Major CFPB rules would need congressional approval, for instance, and the CFPB’s director would answer directly to the president, instead of being fully unaccountable. Its funding, which currently comes from the Federal Reserve, would be handled by Congress.

These are sensible measures. Everyone in our government is accountable to someone who has stood for election. All Federal Funding comes ultimately from Congress. Those are sound constitutional principles.

 

That may be so, but how will that fix the addiction of our economic system to consumer credit? As far as I know, consumer credit has exploded by almost 10% ($92 billion) since Trump took office. It seems that part of the Trump economy is fueled by debt -- no surprise since that's the GOP MO. GWB's economy was based on the same sham.

 

Trump can’t fix anything without Congress, and neither Neither Feeney or Kosmas responded to this:

"No creditor shall issue debt to any household which could exceed a 36% debt to income ratio, without the written knowledge and consent of both spouses or domestic partners in the household and each and every creditor the household already owes."

Why is that important?

2004 Democratic Platform:

"Average family debt is higher than ever. And as they lose the struggle to make ends meet, one out of every seven middle class families may be bankrupt by the end of the decade...over time, fiscal discipline saves families thousands of dollars on their mortgages and credit cards.”

“You have probably caught that Visa credit card commercial in which a wily wife hides her many shopping sprees under the bed and up in the attic, all out of sight from her clueless husband.
The punch line is that she could have won all that stuff she rung up on the plastic. But the reality behind such behavior is hardly a laughing matter.” (Rene a. Guzman, San Antonio Express-News Jan. 12, 2005 12:00 AM)

"Your debt-to-income ratio
36% or less: This is a healthy debt load to carry for most people.

37%-42%: Not bad, but start paring debt now before you get in real trouble.

43%-49%: Financial difficulties are probably imminent unless you take immediate action.

50% or more: Get professional help to aggressively reduce debt.

Source: Gerri Detweiler, author of The Ultimate Credit Handbook"
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/tools/modebtratio.htm

Remember this:

"Another parameter that could be combined with LTV ratios to determine capital requirements might be a capacity measure such as a debt-to-income ratio." http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/PRESS/BCREG/2005/20051006/Basel1Amemo.pdf

"The Charles Schwab Corporation ("Schwab,,)l appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("ANPR") issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of Thrift Supervision (together, the "Agencies") regarding proposed revisions to the Agencies' existing domestic risk-based capital rules...

...P. 14 Another parameter that could be combined with LTV ratios to determine capital requirements might be a capacity measure such as a debt-to-income (DTI) ratio. The Agencies seek comment on (1) the use of an assessment mechanism based on LTV ratios in combination with credit assessments, debt-to-income ratios, or other relevant measures of credit quality; (2) the impact of the use of credit scores on the availability of credit orprices for lower income borrowers, and (3) whether LTVs and other measures of credit worthiness should be updated annually or quarterly and how theseparameters might be updated to accurately reflect the changing risk of a mortgage loan as it matures and asproperty values and borrower's credit assessmentsfluctuate. While we do support the use of combining LTV and industry standard FICO type credit scores in a risk-weighted capital guideline, as noted above, we do not support the inclusion of a capacity measure such as debt-to-income ratio (DTI). Our concern regarding the inclusion of such a measure is two-fold: (1) DTI is a much more subjective measurement than LTV or FICO score, and is not consistently calculated and applied by all lenders. Different lenders will calculate both income and debts using various guidelines. Additionally, some lenders will base DTI calculations only on verified income, while others may rely on stated income. There is too much variability in how this measurement is calculated and applied for it to be a meaningful guide to risk-based capital guidelines. And, (2) statistics have shown that DTI is a much less robust predictor of probability of default, or loss given default, than FICO scores and LTVs.

We do not believe that the use of credit scores in the risk-based capital guidelines will have a negative impact on the availability or price of credit to lower income borrowers. While the cost of capital can generally affect loan availability and price, we do not believe that applicant income is necessarily correlated with credit score. Many applicants with lower incomes have acceptable credit scores, while many applicants with high incomes have unacceptable credit scores. Banks are motivated to grant loans to generate revenue and profit, and most banks have very progressive mortgage programs for lower-income and fIrst-time homebuyers. The Community Reinvestment Act provides additional motivation for banks to reach out to meet the credit needs of the low-to-moderate income borrowers in their assessment areas" (January 17,2006, http://files.ots.treas.gov/comments/3173270d-dbd0-4b64-b398-487753ad9f27.pdf )

"Fed to discuss max 50% debt-to-income ratio for borrowers, prohibition on 'stated-income' loans to subprime borrowers, and other new rules" (May 29th, 2007, 3:38 pm) http://mortgage.freedomblogging.com/2007/05/29/fed-to-discuss-max-50-debt-to-income-ratio-for-borrowers-prohibition-on-stated-income-loans-to-subprime-borrowers-and-other-new-rules/

Do the fracking math.

The FED testified before Congress during the “credit crunch” that the banking industry relied upon irresponsible debt ("a wily wife hides her many shopping sprees under the bed and up in the attic, all out of sight from her clueless husband") to subsidize small business loans.

They don’t want to fix it.

 

All I wanted to do was prevent debt my household could not sustain, but neither Neither Feeney or Kosmas responded to this:

"No creditor shall issue debt to any household which could exceed a 36% debt to income ratio, without the written knowledge and consent of both spouses or domestic partners in the household and each and every creditor the household already owes."

2004 Democratic Platform:

"Average family debt is higher than ever. And as they lose the struggle to make ends meet, one out of every seven middle class families may be bankrupt by the end of the decade...over time, fiscal discipline saves families thousands of dollars on their mortgages and credit cards.”

“You have probably caught that Visa credit card commercial in which a wily wife hides her many shopping sprees under the bed and up in the attic, all out of sight from her clueless husband.

The punch line is that she could have won all that stuff she rung up on the plastic. But the reality behind such behavior is hardly a laughing matter.” (Rene a. Guzman, San Antonio Express-News Jan. 12, 2005 12:00 AM)

Whatever you do don’t tell me <Mod Edit- Rule 2- group insult> gives a crap.

 

Well, that's why this request is being made of Congress:

Mick Mulvaney, acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, on Monday asked Congress to pursue sweeping changes giving the executive and legislative branches control over the bureau’s regulations, leadership and budget. Major CFPB rules would need congressional approval, for instance, and the CFPB’s director would answer directly to the president, instead of being fully independent. Its funding, which currently comes from the Federal Reserve, would be handled by Congress.

The changes would be a substantial departure from the CFPB’s structure, which currently gives it wide latitude to oversee consumer financial products without interference from Congress or the White House, and make it less independent than other banking and markets regulators.

I'm not clear who these "other banking and marker regulators" are that are more independent ALL regulators must be, or under the supervision of someone who has stood for election before the American People. We have no nobility, we have no one with an inherent right to rule, we grant them them the right to rule by voluntarily grating a portion of our sovereignty to them. In America ALL sovereignty resides in The People.

“The bureau is far too powerful, and with precious little oversight of its activities,” Mr. Mulvaney said in a report on the CFPB sent to Congress.

This rogue outfit is a Democrat Party slush fund that operates with an unlimited budget, courtesy of the Federal Reserve and its capacity to actually print money.

Democrats, by-the-Democrats, for-the-Democrats leftwing agency:

The Democrats under Corrupt Obama designed the agency first conceived by Lying Elizabeth Warren so that the CFPB is unaccountable to the voters and their elected leaders, with its funding under the purview of the Federal Reserve, which is independent itself, instead of the Congress.

Its creators designed the agency so that no Republican could ever enter it. Rubin writes:

Over the next two years, the economy collapsed, Democrats gained control of Congress and the White House, and Lying Elizabeth Warren grew famous criticizing big banks in congressional hearings. She lobbied Democrats to include her agency in their Wall Street–reform legislation, arguing that effective enforcement of consumer-protection laws required a regulator independent from politicians beholden to the financial industry. The Democrats had a better idea: They would make her agency independent from Republicans.

Rubin describes how the agency systematically discriminated against Republican hires through wink and nod hiring processes and got away with it.

Then it gets worse:

 

I have no idea what your response has to do with my post.

 

"Exploded" is hyperbolic. Consumer credit has been rising steadily for years. Obama's term doesn't look any better than GWBs, other than the dip during the great recession. I guess that's to be expected from a statist. You ignore what happens on the side of the aisle in which you worship at the government altar.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?id=TOTALSL,

 

It has everything to do with the question you asked, and your comments that followed:

“how will that fix the addiction of our economic system to consumer credit? As far as I know, consumer credit has exploded by almost 10% ($92 billion) since Trump took office. It seems that part of the Trump economy is fueled by debt -- no surprise since that's the GOP MO. GWB's economy was based on the same sham.”

There is a reason why Kosmas (a DEMOCRAT) did not respond to this twice:

"No creditor shall issue debt to any household which could exceed a 36% debt to income ratio, without the written knowledge and consent of both spouses or domestic partners in the household and each and every creditor the household already owes."

It would end slavery!

You said, “It seems that part of the Trump economy is fueled by debt,” well that is true, during Obama they passed the CARD ACT, and during the “credit crunch” the FED ruled on the act, and ended slavery:

“The Federal Reserve's rule told credit card companies that they no longer can consider household income when assessing the creditworthiness of an individual who applies for his or her own card. Under the rule, only an individual's own salary or other income -- rather than combined household income -- can be considered.”

Read more: http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/stay-at-home-parent-credit-cards-household-income-1282.php#ixzz3WiwAm9JK

That ended slavery!

Then the FED testified before Congress that banks rely upon irresponsible debt of spouses with credit cards, when they must use their clueless husband's income to get the card, to subsidize small business loans, so the DEMOCRATS complained about the FED ruling:

“Opposition from CARD Act authors

U.S. Reps. Carolyn Maloney, D-NY, and Louise Slaughter, D-NY, both among the principal authors of the CARD Act, said the rule "goes beyond the intent" of the law and "represents a serious risk for women in abusive domestic partnerships."

"Women trapped in abusive marriages may be unable to work due to a controlling spouse, a hallmark of relationships characterized by domestic violence," Maloney and Slaughter told the Federal Reserve in a letter as it was considering the rule. "The availability of an independent credit card may represent her best chance at establishing independence and a path out of a dangerous relationship."

After the rule was announced, Maloney and Slaughter said they would be studying its implementation and would report any problems to the new federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which could write its own rules beginning in July.”

Read more: http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/stay-at-home-parent-credit-cards-household-income-1282.php#ixzz3Wivmh5r8


So now, because of the DEMOCRATS, debt slavery is legal again to subsidize small business. It just so happens that Trump's economy benefited, but really so did Obama's, the "credit crunch" ended due to reinstating debt slavery thanks to U.S. Reps. Carolyn Maloney, D-NY, and Louise Slaughter, D-NY.

 

Requesting is as lame as claiming there are more than 50 states so we cannot get a law without a Honduran caravan thinking we are going to use thermonuclear bombs.

I told her not to ever get another credit card, she got one, I divorced her, but I am still enslaved to the $30,000 worth of former credit card debt she got without my knowledge and consent. As I previously stated slavery only ended for a short period of time:

“The Federal Reserve's rule told credit card companies that they no longer can consider household income when assessing the creditworthiness of an individual who applies for his or her own card. Under the rule, only an individual's own salary or other income -- rather than combined household income -- can be considered.”

 

I'm glad you finally paid it off.

Ronald L. Rubin, a former enforcement attorney at CFPB, in National Review, lays out the problems as only an insider's account can.

Conceived as a government watchdog with noble aims, the CFPB was doomed by a structure that made it an inherently political agency.

is how he summed this leftist racket up.


Operationally, they were horrible, too. It took local regulatory agencies and a long Los Angeles Times investigative piece to expose the massive opening of unwanted accounts of consumers by Wells Fargo employees back in 2013. After all the work was done, CFPB came in and fined Wells Fargo, which was loaded with Democrat donors, the $100 million it got headlines for, ignoring that the agency actually didn't do anything to uncover the bad case of abuse against customers. They weren't in the business of protecting customers, they were just about shakedowns and publicity, as Rubin described.

And that cash they extracted goes solely to Democrat groups.

IBD writes:

Now, a little-noticed item on the CFPB's website reveals the powerful new agency is launching its own scheme to provide backdoor funding for nonprofit urban groups politically aligned with Democrats.

The CFPB's so-called Civil Penalty Fund from its own shakedown operations targeting financial institutions. Through ramped-up (and trumped-up) anti-discrimination lawsuits and investigations, the agency will bankroll some 60 liberal nonprofits, many of whom are radical Acorn-style pressure groups. These organizations provide "financial coaching" for low-income homebuyers, as well as "housing and social services."

But their activities are more political than charitable. IBD obtained a list of groups eligible for the bank payola, as approved by CFPB Director Richard Cordray and Labor Secretary Thomas Perez. It includes:

• The Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, whose directors include senior Democratic National Committee officials; the self-described "policy advocacy" group has lobbied Congress for more welfare spending at least 108 times since Obama took office.

• The Mississippi Center for Justice, whose stated mission is "advancing racial and economic justice" and "attacking predatory lending practices."

• People's Community Action Corp. of St. Louis, which has seated Obama appointees and Democrat lawmakers on its board.

They're partisan, they don't protect consumers, their focus is on going for firms with the largest asset bases to extract fines rather than the companies with the most violations, as Rubin notes, and they fail to cooperate with Congress. If that's not a rogue agency, now appointing its own leftists over President Trump's choices for the agency, what is? President Trump deserves the full support of the Congress and the voters as he battles this leftwing beast.

UPDATE: from Investor's Business Daily: Throw the whole thing out.