[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Then they should suggest that he or she get a job.

But even WITH a job, the parents still needed to be co-signers.

In a sense, with this new rule, there is NO way of the parents letting their kids take responsibility and learn how to manage credit, w/o being on the hook themselves. It's a bad idea.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

But even WITH a job, the parents still needed to be co-signers.

In a sense, with this new rule, there is NO way of the parents letting their kids take responsibility and learn how to manage credit, w/o being on the hook themselves. It's a bad idea.

-t

The article linked to at the beginning of the thread clearly says that the applicant needs a co-signature OR proof of sufficient income.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The article linked to at the beginning of the thread clearly says that the applicant needs a co-signature OR proof of sufficient income.

Sorry, I missed that.
Makes me feel a little better about it.

I just wish that this requirement would come from the banks, and not from the government.
What this tells you is this:

The banks, who get bailout money, would like to continue giving money to people that really can't afford paying it back.
And why does the government care about potential losses at the banks ? EXACTLY, because the government will, in the end, foot the bill.

What's wrong with that picture ? You tell me...

-t

[jokell82]

I don't understand the need for this regulation at all. If you have a job with sufficient income you will get a card, just as it is now. And if you don't, you'll be denied without a co-signer, just as it is (or should be) now. Why have a law in the first place???

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

I don't understand the need for this regulation at all. If you have a job with sufficient income you will get a card, just as it is now. And if you don't, you'll be denied without a co-signer, just as it is (or should be) now. Why have a law in the first place???

For the children.™

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

I don't understand the need for this regulation at all. If you have a job with sufficient income you will get a card, just as it is now. And if you don't, you'll be denied without a co-signer, just as it is (or should be) now. Why have a law in the first place???

Because the part I bolded was not the case. Usually "student credit cards" did not require a co-signer.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

I don't understand the need for this regulation at all. If you have a job with sufficient income you will get a card, just as it is now. And if you don't, you'll be denied without a co-signer, just as it is (or should be) now. Why have a law in the first place???

I can only assume that banks would give people a card, even though the government thinks those people can't afford it.

I just disagree that the government needs to step in. If the banks want to take risks, fine.
The problem is the government bailouts, because they screw up the bank's responsibility for bad decisions, and shift the burden on the tax payers.

-t

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Because the part I bolded was not the case. Usually "student credit cards" did not require a co-signer.

They did, however, have very small credit lines (less than $1000), and required you to be 18 (you know, an adult).

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Ummm. Isn't it up to the card issuers in The Land Of The Free™ to decide whether they'll give credit to young folks with no observable means of income?

It used to be, but then a bunch of the card issuers came hat-in-hand to the govmint and needed bailing out BECAUSE they deigned to do what the govmint had encouraged: lend money to certain groups and demographics in order to be "fair." So, no, it isn't TLOTF anymore, b/c the banks are beholden to the govmint. Sounds like a plan for world domination, doesn't it?

And yes, the FDIC tracks the ethnicity of who the bank lends to, whether it's credit cards or mortgages or whatever. I can hear some of you gasping out there, but it's true.

Remains to be seen what "sufficient" means. I hope it doesn't mean the Fannie/Freddie definition of "sufficient," b/c they thought that 0 was a sufficient amount for a downpayment.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Remains to be seen what "sufficient" means. I hope it doesn't mean the Fannie/Freddie definition of "sufficient," b/c they thought that 0 was a sufficient amount for a downpayment.

Actually, there were cases with less than 0.

Didn't some people get financing for more than 100% of the house value ?

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

They did, however, have very small credit lines (less than $1000), and required you to be 18 (you know, an adult).

My anecdotal experience in college (2001-2005) was that the limits were raised pretty quickly, regardless of income. And as I said before, the reason why these companies were taking the risk on college students is because they make a bet that the students' parents are going to bail them out. No matter the age, they are not really treating them like an adult.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

My anecdotal experience in college (2001-2005) was that the limits were raised pretty quickly, regardless of income.

As were mine, however I never carried a balance preferring to pay it off in full every month so that made sense.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Because the part I bolded was not the case. Usually "student credit cards" did not require a co-signer.

I still fail to see the problem. Either the student is responsible and pays it off, or they are irresponsible and pay for it in other areas (tarnished credit history). What purpose does the government have in this scenario?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

I still fail to see the problem. Either the student is responsible and pays it off, or they are irresponsible and pay for it in other areas (tarnished credit history). What purpose does the government have in this scenario?

Beyond the paternalistic argument, I think the government does have a legitimate interest in curbing the possibility of a generational "debt bomb" because credit card issuers have taken to selling credit cards as a commodity (that they make money off of through transaction fees) rather than an instrument of credit.

[andi*pandi]

And how exactly are the kids going to pay off the cc without a job? Mom and Dad. Yep. Independence. Responsibility!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I think the government does have a legitimate interest in curbing the possibility of a generational "debt bomb"

The government ? Especially the Obama administration ?

Behold the f***ing irony in this...

-t

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

And how exactly are the kids going to pay off the cc without a job? Mom and Dad. Yep. Independence. Responsibility!

Only if mom and dad choose to do so. Plenty of parents can't or won't do that. As I've said it's up to the parents how they raise their own kids.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The government ? Especially the Obama administration ?

Behold the f***ing irony in this...

-t

*Shrug* Maybe so.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Only if mom and dad choose to do so. Plenty of parents can't or won't do that. As I've said it's up to the parents how they raise their own kids.

But if you have an entire class of product based on the assumption that they will, then we have a problem.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

But if you have an entire class of product based on the assumption that they will, then we have a problem.

No we don't. Then the credit card companies have a problem. I don't have any problems in that scenario.

And if the problem is big enough those companies go under, and the smarter companies that do not engage in such risky practices rise to the top and the problem doesn't exist anymore. Again I see no reason for the government to come anywhere near this.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

No we don't. Then the credit card companies have a problem. I don't have any problems in that scenario.

And if the problem is big enough those companies go under, and the smarter companies that do not engage in such risky practices rise to the top and the problem doesn't exist anymore. Again I see no reason for the government to come anywhere near this.

There aren't any companies that "do not engage in such risky practices." This is an industry-wide practice. I agree with you that credit card issuers should be able to take on additional risks if they want, but just as a bank is required to have a certain percentage of deposits on hand to mitigate risk, I think it is reasonable to require that, if an applicant for credit is financially dependent on their parents, the creditor obtain a co-signature. This does not overly limit the creditor's ability to solicit applicants, and it provides some link, however tenuous, backing up the creditor's faith in the applicant.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

There aren't any companies that "do not engage in such risky practices."

Then let their failures as companies make way for the ones that don't. The government has no business in my life, or my deals between a company and myself.


They are not my parents, nor do I want them acting in my place for my children. The government is there to protect us from others not from ourselves. This is crossing the line. It didn't work in Russia, why are we bringing it here??

[ort888]

So how do you guys feel about labels on food and safety standards on cars and drivers licenses and truth in advertising laws and...

...it sounds a lot like some of you are just in favor of straight out anarchy. Do you want this to be like the wild west? I don't get it.

Is any law that gets passed a bad one? Is it all government meddling? I dream of starting an oral sex booth on my front lawn but the damn nanny state Obama administration won't let me. Meddling bastards. Why don't they just stay out of my life and my right to take part in the free market? I should be able to do what I want without any government intervention.

[Snow-i]

Those things are all in place to protect people from others, not from themselves.

This is wholly different.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Then let their failures as companies make way for the ones that don't. The government has no business in my life, or my deals between a company and myself.


They are not my parents, nor do I want them acting in my place for my children. The government is there to protect us from others not from ourselves. This is crossing the line. It didn't work in Russia, why are we bringing it here??

Do you use a bank? Do you have a broker? Do you have a mortgage? Have you ever paid for car insurance? There are any numbers of "deals" between companies and individuals that the government regulates in some fashion, in part to protect consumers, but also to set ground rules that mitigate larger economic risks that would develop if actors were allowed to pursue completely their self-interest. I agree that it's preferable for rational actors in a marketplace to pursue their own interests and come to their own agreements, but to deny that there is a legitimate role for government in greasing the wheels, so to speak, of financial infrastructure is head-in-the-sand wishful thinking.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Those things are all in place to protect people from others, not from themselves.

This is wholly different.

Don't expect those lefties to understand that minor ( ) difference.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Do you use a bank? Do you have a broker? Do you have a mortgage? Have you ever paid for car insurance? There are any numbers of "deals" between companies and individuals that the government regulates in some fashion, in part to protect consumers, but also to set ground rules that mitigate larger economic risks that would develop if actors were allowed to pursue completely their self-interest. I agree that it's preferable for rational actors in a marketplace to pursue their own interests and come to their own agreements, but to deny that there is a legitimate role for government in greasing the wheels, so to speak, of financial infrastructure is head-in-the-sand wishful thinking.

Again, those regulations are to protect the consumer from someone else (companies).

But the proposed CC regulation is purely to protect people from themselves. We don't need that.

-t

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Many people at 19 haven't even been out there in the world supporting themselves long enough to fully understand taxes and living expenses. All they need on top of that is a credit card bill larger than they make in 4 months.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Sounds like a good idea to me. Many people at 19 haven't even been out there in the world supporting themselves long enough to fully understand taxes and living expenses. All they need on top of that is a credit card bill larger than they make in 4 months.

And how are they *ever* gonna learn ?
Or is the government supposed to spoon feed and pamper them until they die ?

-t

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Sounds like a good idea to me. Many people at 19 haven't even been out there in the world supporting themselves long enough to fully understand taxes and living expenses. All they need on top of that is a credit card bill larger than they make in 4 months.

It may be a good idea, but how is it the federal government's responsibility?

In fact, I'm wondering where exactly in the constitution it says the government can do something like this.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Sounds like a good idea to me. Many people at 19 haven't even been out there in the world supporting themselves long enough to fully understand taxes and living expenses. All they need on top of that is a credit card bill larger than they make in 4 months.

And how exactly is that the government's role?

I wouldn't have been able to complete school loan free if it wasn't for my Amex. Now you want to punish responsible use because others can't control their urge to spend?

Outright ridiculous. Its another step towards complete government control over our lives. Enough already. I'll deal with my own finances however I choose. Its not the government's role to tell me whats best for me.

Where does it end? Whats next? Goverment regulated credit limits? Hell no. Like i said, they tried it in russia and it didn't work.

I'd also like to point out that it sounds good to you because it doesn't affect you. Watch them take your ability to buy a house because you don't fit the "requirements" set forth by some fat slob at some office who has never even met you. I think then you'll be singing a different tune. Sure we aren't there yet, but we're certainly heading in that direction with initiatives like this.

Preserve our right to control our own lives. Quit telling us how to live. It isn't your job, goverment. Go spend my hard earned money on something worthwhile, such as lowering the tuition rates and providing more housing at a lower cost to those college kids. Then they won't even need the damn cards to make it through college. Instead i pay you to come up with ways to make it harder on me and my family.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Again, those regulations are to protect the consumer from someone else (companies).

But the proposed CC regulation is purely to protect people from themselves. We don't need that.

-t

Not at all. In the examples I gave, there are regulations governing the agreements that companies are allowed to make that exist purely to protect the health of the industry/sector as a whole. Banks used to be even more restricted in that manner, actually. This is a regulation on the company as much as it is on the consumer.

Likewise, I would argue that the new CC regulation is more than just paternalism over cardholders. In the boom years, card companies issued vast amounts of unsecured debt to college students on the assumption that their parents had the will and the means to act as collateral. That will and means may no longer be there, as people lose their jobs, baby boomers' retirements look less secure, etc. As a result, all of this unsecured debt suddenly looks a lot more risky, and it could have larger repercussions if more people start defaulting on their debt. Going forward, I think it's important to draw a legal line between credit card debt and what card companies are assuming is reliable collateral, just as banks are legally required to maintain some collateral on the money they are borrowing from depositors who assume they can have their money back on demand. This is an issue of national consequence, not just protection of individual cardholders.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Not at all. In the examples I gave, there are regulations governing the agreements that companies are allowed to make that exist purely to protect the health of the industry/sector as a whole. Banks used to be even more restricted in that manner, actually. This is a regulation on the company as much as it is on the consumer.

Likewise, I would argue that the new CC regulation is more than just paternalism over cardholders. In the boom years, card companies issued vast amounts of unsecured debt to college students on the assumption that their parents had the will and the means to act as collateral. That will and means may no longer be there, as people lose their jobs, baby boomers' retirements look less secure, etc. As a result, all of this unsecured debt suddenly looks a lot more risky, and it could have larger repercussions if more people start defaulting on their debt. Going forward, I think it's important to draw a legal line between credit card debt and what card companies are assuming is reliable collateral, just as banks are legally required to maintain some collateral on the money they are borrowing from depositors who assume they can have their money back on demand. This is an issue of national consequence, not just protection of individual cardholders.

You still haven't shown how this is the government's role. The credit card companies will make the right decision regarding collectable debt- that is unless they always have the government to bail them out when they don't get paid-

Its unnecessary and an affront to personal freedom and responsibility.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You still haven't shown how this is the government's role. The credit card companies will make the right decision regarding collectable debt- that is unless they always have the government to bail them out when they don't get paid-

Its unnecessary and an affront to personal freedom and responsibility.

It's the government's role in the same way that regulation of other bank products and policies is the government's role. It has implications for wider financial stability beyond simply the the relationship between the creditor and the borrower. The entire point here is that credit card companies do not always make the "right decision" on a macro level, which presents profound economic risks for the wider economy. Otherwise, we wouldn't be in the situation now where there is vast amounts of unsecured debt that was issued on the assumption that baby boomer's retirement funds would always go up (and without asking the boomers in question to sign on the dotted line themselves). In the same way, banks' individual interests would always be to lend out as much money as they possibly could and maintain as little actual deposits as possible, but that introduces a larger risk of national financial meltdown if enough people get scared enough to ask for their deposits back at the same time.

Are you against any government regulation of financial markets and credit markets?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It's the government's role in the same way that regulation of other bank products and policies is the government's role. It has implications for wider financial stability beyond simply the the relationship between the creditor and the borrower. The entire point here is that credit card companies do not always make the "right decision" on a macro level, which presents profound economic risks for the wider economy. Otherwise, we wouldn't be in the situation now where there is vast amounts of unsecured debt that was issued on the assumption that baby boomer's retirement funds would always go up. In the same way, banks' individual interests would always be to lend out as much money as they possibly could and maintain as little actual deposits as possible, but that introduces a larger risk of national financial meltdown if enough people get scared enough to ask for their deposits back at the same time.

Are you against any government regulation of financial markets and credit markets?

Show me the data that says this is hurting our economy. Show me why this is necessary. Show me the wide spread implications of doom if this isn't done. Show me that this isn't another unnecessary regulation that ends up hurting honest and hard working people that pay their taxes.

I am against unnecessary regulations, and wholly against the government sticking its nose in my business to carry out whatever agenda it may have at the time. its proven over and over that its agenda is NOT in my best interest, and that the only person capable of taking care of me is me.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Show me the data that says this is hurting our economy. Show me why this is necessary. Show me the wide spread implications of doom if this isn't done. Show me that this isn't another unnecessary regulation that ends up hurting honest and hard working people that pay their taxes.

I am against unnecessary regulations, and wholly against the government sticking its nose in my business to carry out whatever agenda it may have at the time. its proven over and over that its agenda is NOT in my best interest, and that the only person capable of taking care of me is me.

A couple of years old, but still applicable: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143037,00.html

Consumer debt, if left unchecked, is a drag on national economic growth, for obvious reasons (everyone's cash is going to pay for products they've already used, not products that are being produced).

[Snow-i]

This shows nothing of why college kids need to be regulated on credit card debt. Thats just saying that people spending more than they can is bad...which is true. Why don't we help educate and make available resources to inform these kids on proper credit use instead of telling them they can't do it? Why don't we work with the schools to set up resources for resonsible credit use? These don't sound like more productive ways of stimulating our economy? Give the kids a tax break instead of taking away one of their financial tools. That will help them more than anything.

Seems like regulating who can and can't get a credit card is just another thinly veiled attempt at gaining control over the market as a whole. There is very little gain at a price of another personal freedom taken away.

[ghporter]

I hate getting into one of these threads this late.

Credit card companies have been preying on kids, especially in their first semester of college, for years. They offer what sounds like a great deal, but they actually have a great deal of fine print that makes it not at all a good deal. What's so dumb about requiring that credit card companies may not extend credit to a person who can't show an ability to pay by themselves? Aside from not hosing over parents, this would also allow impressionable and un-mentored new credit card holders to build a good credit record and not become instant casualties of credit card company greed.

My son is almost 22. He's never WANTED a credit card. That suits both him and us just fine. We have used our credit cards to pay for things for him, but he's paid us back (or even in advance) for these things, such as college tuition and books. I'd much rather have kids be extremely wary of credit in any form than so blase that they don't even think about how credit works. Of course if their parents knew or cared about credit, that could help too...

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

A couple of years old, but still applicable: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143037,00.html

Consumer debt, if left unchecked, is a drag on national economic growth, for obvious reasons (everyone's cash is going to pay for products they've already used, not products that are being produced).

Might I also add, you cited a 4.5 year old opinion. You have shown nothing as to why this is necessary or prudent.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

What's so dumb about requiring that credit card companies may not extend credit to a person who can't show an ability to pay by themselves?

If they can't pay the companies already have plenty of incentive not to give them credit - losing money.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I hate getting into one of these threads this late.

Credit card companies have been preying on kids, especially in their first semester of college, for years. They offer what sounds like a great deal, but they actually have a great deal of fine print that makes it not at all a good deal. What's so dumb about requiring that credit card companies may not extend credit to a person who can't show an ability to pay by themselves? Aside from not hosing over parents, this would also allow impressionable and un-mentored new credit card holders to build a good credit record and not become instant casualties of credit card company greed.

My son is almost 22. He's never WANTED a credit card. That suits both him and us just fine. We have used our credit cards to pay for things for him, but he's paid us back (or even in advance) for these things, such as college tuition and books. I'd much rather have kids be extremely wary of credit in any form than so blase that they don't even think about how credit works. Of course if their parents knew or cared about credit, that could help too...

The point is its not up to you. Its up to the "kids" who are by definition legal adults. You, and the government, should not be telling them what they can and can't do. If they want to make bad choices, then they should be allowed to. Its not your job or your right as the government to deny them that.

If the credit cards are preying on college kids, use some of my tax money to help educate them. Regulating them will do nothing to curb this issue. They'll just wait til their 21 and they'll do it then instead - they won't know any better. The stakes will be higher at that point also.

Educate, don't regulate.

[besson3c]

Yeah, but we've been also educating people to stop smoking because it can kill you for all these years, educating people about the dangers of various drugs, fast food, etc. At some point the stupidity of others affects us all. Personal liberties are fine and dandy until you start doing stupid **** like drinking and driving that affects me, and one could make the case that foreign debt affects us.

I'm not trying to make a point pertaining to the credit card thing so keep your knickers on, just a very general one. As always there is a balance.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

I for one, do not like having a government employee telling me what is good for me.

So ... there should also then be no laws dictating how old one should be before they can drink, smoke and gamble, right?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Might I also add, you cited a 4.5 year old opinion. You have shown nothing as to why this is necessary or prudent.

High consumer debt is bad for the economy -- if left unchecked, dangerously bad. These are facts. The article I cited is opinion, but it is based on an underlying reality. Your intransigence about the very idea that the government would regulate some aspect of the credit market in order to prevent a damaging bubble, when about 60 years of reality are to the contrary, is bizarre.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The point is its not up to you. Its up to the "kids" who are by definition legal adults.

Except the credit card issuers are still treating them like dependents. That's the moral hazard that needs to be rectified. If they actually are dependents and the card issuer is taking their parents earnings into account when making its decision to extend a certain line of credit, then that assumption should be codified in a way to make the parents liable in order to protect the rest of the customer base. If someone is 18, has independent income, and is approved for a credit card based on that income, then I agree with you totally.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

If they can't pay the companies already have plenty of incentive not to give them credit - losing money.

This incentive does not exist if the company is assuming that the parents will pay for it.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

This incentive does not exist if the company is assuming that the parents will pay for it.

It does if their assumption is wrong. And if it isn't then what's the problem, other than for the parents?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

It does if their assumption is wrong. And if it isn't then what's the problem, other than for the parents?

If the card issuer is evaluating the applicant as a dependent then there needs to be some responsibility on their part to make sure that that they have legal recourse to go after the parents if the cardholder can't pay the minimum.

Over the past 15 years or so, the card issuers have not been concerned about this because they would rather grab market share now (remember we're talking about a commodity that generates fee-based income, and not simply a borrowing relationship) and deal with occasional missed payment (an opportunity to jack up the rate, anyway) in anticipation of a windfall down the line when the cardholder is making more money and they've expanded their market share. This is an example of rent-seeking behavior on the part of the card issuer that, when taken collectively across all companies, creates a systemic problem. You have one generation that has high consumer debt issued in part because of the perceived wealth of their parents. The older generation has accumulated wealth, but they are about to enter retirement and may be hoarding and not spending. Plus, the economy may lose billions of dollars in wealth anyway when everyone's 401(k) tanks. This cannot lead to a happy ending. I'm not saying it's the apocalypse, but it's a legitimate concern, and one way to address it is to make sure if a card issuer is evaluating an applicant as a dependent, that the parents have to assent by co-signing.

Edit: or 18 year olds could, you know, get a job.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

If they can't pay the companies already have plenty of incentive not to give them credit - losing money.

I assume you're familiar with the minimum payment option for credit cards? Many people with credit card debt pay the minimum, thus racking up more interest and fees and debt. I'm sure CC companies make plenty of money from people who can't afford to pay their full balance, even assuming folks eventually default. CC users don't want to declare bankrupcy and get poor credit ratings, so that's a last ditch after paying the minimum for eons.

That would be an interesting bar chart: initial debt, interest paid, amount at which person defaults/bankrupts.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

High consumer debt is bad for the economy -- if left unchecked, dangerously bad. These are facts. The article I cited is opinion, but it is based on an underlying reality. Your intransigence about the very idea that the government would regulate some aspect of the credit market in order to prevent a damaging bubble, when about 60 years of reality are to the contrary, is bizarre.

And denying the oppurtunity to obtain credit to a segment of the population helps this how? If its detrimental to the economy then we should find another way to curb this. Simply denying someone credit because high consumer debt is "bad" is a piss poor reason.

You still haven't shown how this regulation will help in the least bit. You might delay some bad debt for a few years...but the problem will remain and the only thing we have at the end of the day is another regulation, and 21 year olds with higher amounts bad credit because they never learned their lesson in college. Show me how this will help anything. Explain to me how we're bettering the economy by denying a personal freedom to these 18-21 year olds...the answers you've given thus far are short sighted and flawed.


You have shown nothing but a 4.5 year old opinion as support for an "underlying reality." If its that entrenched in reality surely there should be better articles than a vague opinion written 4.5 years ago. If you can't produce anything, i'll understand. Its another device to further an agenda of government control over the citizenry - the creation of a nanny state. Poorly veiled and lacking even an iota of legitimate support.