When I did activism in Canada, there were no "free speech zones"; free speech didn't come with fences.

Canadians have more rights and freedoms than Americans. They're healthier and live longer too.

But if you must force it to the individual, then yes, I expect myself, my husband, my child, and any future lineage to contribute their fair share so that we might all benefit. Absolutely. It's not a burden, it's protecting a right.

BTW, my link was to Results 1 - 10 of about 22,500 for Shanghai forced relocation. Try clicking more links before you show off you ignorance.

The economy's gone global. Get used to it.
A lot of countries have different levels and mixes of socialism and fare much better than America. I pointed out that China has a far stronger balance sheet and much stronger growth. And all you can offer up is a link to the Epoch times.

Great.

I don't mind paying it back; I just can't pay exorbitant payments. At least not until I start making more money.

I can barely pay anything. But when I'm able to, I want to PAY IT OFF.

Obviously, it was a facetious remark. But if he really thinks China is better, then by all means, he should give it a try. Maybe he can settle down in Shanghai and then be forced to relocate to make way for progress. Is that what you want in New York, ironchef.

This is not the government's responsibility.

Before you scream "SOCIALISM!," consider the government's heavy involvement in the banking sector, not just through the recent bailouts, but through long-standing institutions like Fannie and Sallie Mae, and Freddie Mac.

So the implication is that Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie, and Sallie show how we could make this work?

Want to know what created the secondary market for mortgages and inadvertently created all of the reckless derivatives?

Until we get some limited government people in Washington, I am certain that we're headed for serfdom. The middle class will be wiped out and it will be the haves and havenots.

Hmmm, American Access card, i'm sure the government could do it, after all, they already print the money that you spend, this'd just eliminate a step. Besides, the government has plenty of experience handling debt, just look at the national debt.

I'm actually one of the lucky ones that didn't bother with college, have no student loans, and made 180k last year, 120k this year. I chose an industry where people who didn't get higher education thrive and can make more than people with a degree.

If you want Socialism, go somewhere else. We don't drink that poison here.

Ever see the growth in Shanghai? It blows NYC out of the water.

Nah, I love my current card - 2% cash back on everything, paid for by all the people paying 24.99% rates. I very much doubt that a gov't sponsored card would charge borrowers enough to subsidize my perks, so no thanks.

Customer service will be like dealing with the DMV.

We're kind of at the beginning of the end of America as we have known it, due to the way the federal gov't has operated outside of the power granted to it by the Constitution. The gov't is an explicit document, not implicit. It's specifically states that any power not expressly given to the federal gov't falls back to the states.

The federal gov't has manipulated the states through unconstitutional policies and regulations into becoming dependent on it to actually operate. It's done the same thing to half of the population.

It has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. It's the gov't versus the people. Sadly, the people have just let the federal gov't do whatever it wants, so now were screwed.

Maybe you should have worked a little before going right on to grad school if you couldn't afford it? It depends on the field but I had no debt after grad school since fellowships and stipends covered everything. I actually would have made money on the whole thing if I didn't have medical issues near the end.

You will accept and use your government credit card and accept the terms because we in the Omnipotent Imperial Federal Socialist government will force you to.

Your spending will be monitored by us and we will not allow you to purchase contraband like gasoline and weapons, lest you violate the policies of the collective.

Not to mention... does anybody think that Congress would ever allow the Feds to actually do anything against somebody who refuses to pay their card back?

Here is a thought...how about teaching money management rather than just deluding people they have more money than they really have because they have a fat credit card limit. Haven't we learned anything from this mess we are in?

Corporate America in its greed has destroyed our jobs, taken away our homes, and now is sticking the knief in and gutting us. There is no one to come to the aid of Mainstreet, accept the government.

I think you have a point, but could the payments be adjusted to accommodate the fact that recent grads are NOT making the kind of money they used to, in an economy that is going belly-up? Is it necessary to kick people in the slats when they are trying to utilize that degree, and are just starting out?

A program about this for high school students would be awesome.

Plus, the income tax is tens of thousands of pages long.

Why would a "government-issued credit card" be any different?

Exactly!

And you get hit with all this "Oh a college degree will help you get a better job, blah blah" bullshit and what are you going to do? Even something simple and not specialized like law school can cost a lot, even if you apply for programs and work study and grants, etc. etc.

I have two degrees and I'm answering the goddamn phone. I'm about to get hit with paying it back (I dropped out of grad school recently because I just didn't want to waste any more money) and they are just going to have to take what I can give them. This is not what I thought would happen.

Credit scores I hate because they make you want to use CC's for no reason, even if you can pay them off- just to keep accounts active.

and we don't know if obama is good for it because we're at a negative deficit. duhh.

I'll try to stay more on topic though :)

I think the fact that 75% of us would use a gov CC is a clear indication that something is horribly wrong with the market alternative. There are a lot of things you just can't do in todays world unless you have a CC. The issuers know this, therefore we all get hosed with high rates and archaic policies.

Whether it comes in the form of a gov CC or not, reform is in order.

What I DO have a problem with is those who go to school, rack up a bunch of debt, then graduate and bitch nonstop about how big of a burden their loan payments are, or that they're shocked they are so high. It's no longer a reality that you go to college and come out rich. Lots of college grads struggle for a long time, but there's nothing wrong with that. Yeah, it would be great not to have the student loan burden, but that's just not reality. I think there needs to be more disclosure by the educational institutions of how much it's going to cost to pay back the loans before the student enrolls and takes on the burden.

And the past administration didn't? They created the playbook for power grabs. Remember the party that said that we can hold you without charges, torture you, spy on you without a warrant, etc. The last administration would review your purchase history without a shred of reason. Where was your outrage then?

Or is a government issued credit card that will compete with (not replace) private credit cards so much worse than spied on, held without charges, and tortured?

I understand your concern, but I'm sure a statutory privacy wall can be created that's better than what you get now. Under the previous administration, they would just wiretap you, get your information, etc. without a warrant and without a reason. So, I hope you were out there protesting those actions.

But how do you keep costs low without avoiding risk? I have the BEST bank/credit card in the world and I'll tell you USAA must be pretty risk averse. Everything is pretty tied to your credit ratings. Sure, you get good CSRs no matter what but not everyone has access to all products (e.g. Deposit @ Home).

yea cause that's a good idea.

I think a better Idea is for state schools to become cheaper and better funded. You really can't go that much into debt at a state school. I will walk away with (if you combine my art school loans) 50k, but almost half is from a private art school in which my mother has the 60k extra.

Back on topic government should not issue credit.

in reality, neither capitalism nor socialism work on their own merits, but there are many great examples of a balanced use of each for maximum effect.

for the record, i don't support a US credit card. what i do support is state-ownership of markets to increase competition within the marketplace. a perfect example is cell networks in europe vs. cell networks here. in most EU nations, the network is owned & maintained by the state (the socialist aspect), but usage is leased to private business (the capitalist aspect). this relieves private entities of the burden of capital investment, allowing them to maximize efficiency in their core business (providing cell service to individuals/businesses).

the result is a "truly free" marketplace that works. smaller regional carriers can compete with larger state-wide & multi-state carriers b/c they don't need to make a massive upfront investment in a network to establish their business. compare that to our system which is inferior in coverage, speed, availability, technology, price & competitive choice.

socialism + capitalism. the perfect partners.

Although, I just might want this card, since they won't try to nickel and dime me as much as a private company is wont to do.

@GuinevereRucker:

congratulations!

you're the latest winner of missed the friggin point.

this not the time, nor place to discuss politics or social security.

the point is people scream socialism now that Obama is president yet this country has dabbled in socialism since 1935.

you may have a house or a family or an education. IF your lucky enough to be employed enough to afford one.

yes - ONE. not 2 or 3. ONE.

until they get laid off, get in a wreck, get a major medical incident, become widow(er), etc.

As you should know, the students at the top schools usually have their offers of employment in hand a full year before they graduate, so there is no "Search" after they graduate, unless they screwed they second summer and got no-offered. I'm not going off the numbers the law school gives out, but off a number of independent sources that compile their own data (NLJ250, Vault, etc.).

You're definitely right on the up-or-out, but a little research on a prospective students part will reveal that, so it shouldn't be a shock. Perhaps the market has changed since you graduated in 2001, but the way it is now (though that may change this coming fall) anyone in the top 50% at a T14 will get BigLaw (or a clerkship, followed by BigLaw) if they want it and can interview reasonably well.

Take at look at this chart put out by the NLJ:
[www.law.com]

@menty666: And that's the ol' slippery slope explanation. And that's what I fear the most of any govt program. Here in NYC they want to put tolls on the East River bridges (The Brooklyn, Manhattan, 59th Street [Queensboro], and the other currently non-tolled crossings. They say "it's only $2, the same as a subway fare." Yeah, well, today it's $2; tomorrow, when the MTA and the other pigs at the trough of public coffers decide they need more money, hey jack up the East River tolls to $3. And so on and so on...

I don't know if you'd count the airlines and cruise ships in the same vein, but they used the high oil prices as a Trojan Horse to put in the a al carte fees for luggage and food.

The Bailout just confirms my suspicions that the government should have less power, not more.

One of the biggest ways they cheat the numbers is to not count women who stay home (temporarily or permanently) with children. Those women often end up in lower-paying jobs or part-time work, so it behooves the law schools not to count them.

You can also look at the percentage of their graduates they claim are doing "public service" law, versus the much lower percentage who qualify for LARP.

I have even less sympathy for law students who bitch about the debt, as they already had 3+ years of undergrad done before they decided to go to law school, so they should have had the sense to look into the statistics. Unfortunately, everyone thinks they're going to be in the top 10% of their class, so that tends to throw off any common sense.

Of course it could yield terrible results, we're just brainstorming here... but at least this way the right wingers could be happy with some money going to the private sector, and the left wingers could be happy with a low rate fee free card for the masses.

I'm just trying to find the middle.

@Crystal Wojcinski: @YouDidWhatNow?: Great points YouDidWhatNow. I'm also a proponent of using a credit card for every purchase. One thing you left off the list: Extended warranties.

VISA doubles your warranty on anything other than cars or water heaters, up to to a 3 year total. I've used it myself and it's hassle-free. They send you a check in the mail to get it fixed/replaced yourself.

I am not saying small houses and cars are a bad thing. It just that everything isn't as rosy as many people make it feel. I know they are having riots in France right now because the government is trying to reduce some of the benefits.

In my mind any kind of protections or laws to make things fair, normally make thing more unfair, they just transfer the unfairness, often multiplying it.

I don't think our economic issues right now can largley be blamed on any one group or party. It was just greed at it worst from everybody. I think if anything was done to temper it would have kept us down to a point we might even be worse off now than we are. Some of the problems are world wide and socialist governments have more problems with even higher unemployment. One reason is the protectionism in socialist governments make it much more expensive to hire(and fire)people. There is always a catch 22. We are dealing with this issue with health care now. It would be great to make it free, but it is going to make it more expensive too. The problem with health-care is it is so expensive no matter what, and no one likes paying for it. We would rather spend our money on cable and cell phones.

Look at countries like Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. They have a great deal of socialism. But they also have capitalism. Sure, the taxes are higher (50% range), but the benefits are better (good unemployment coverage, universal health care, better education).

However, it is still true that the student loan industry thrives on undereducated borrowers (iiiirony!) as well as on disturbing school-creditor agreements that funnel new students straight to certain banks. Everything is weighted against students right from the start. At a certain point, it doesn't matter how educated and financially aware a student is, they're the "very little" guy against the "hugenormous guys."

My argument wasn't mean to advocate for student loan delinquency as a "solution." It was simply that, given the educational system under which we live, it is inevitable that large numbers of students will either be forced to stop paying their student loans or will find themselves stuck in a near-poverty situation.

I fear that an attitude that only faults "lack of personal responsibility" for student loan problems is also one that encourages the already socioeconomically disadvantaged to simply never go to school.

No thank you. Nope, nope, nope.

* Especially those residents holding office: twice the discount!

I agree that trying to predict your career, the economy, etc. is tough, but that's no excuse to not at least know what you're getting into. My sister is about to graduate from a private college in TX with an Arts degree, and until recently had NO idea how much her loan payments were going to be.

I also simply can't accept that just because things don't work out after college (your "Bet" doesn't pay out in your favor) that you should be able to walk away from your obligation to pay back the loans just because paying them back is a burden.

I do think a large part of this problem comes from poor parenting, a lower education system that doesn't teach any sort of personal finance (most schools, at least) and a culture that has taught students that it's IMPOSSIBLE to be successful without going to college, and that you MUST go to the best undergraduate institution you can get into, regardless of the cost. However, even given these structural problems, I can't relieve the students of the responsibility to at least do a little due diligence before they sign their lives away to student loan payments. If you're smart enough to get into college, you should at least be able to do the math (hell, there are 1000 online calculators for it now), or ask someone about repayment.

It is not a black and white issue, and not everything you learned about socialism during the Red Scare is true. In truth, neither system is perfect and both have their evils, but a healthy mix of the two can and has been made to work to great effect.

Americans often think of themselves as having the best healthcare system in the world, and indeed our research is fantastic, yet most of Western Europe, who has a socialized medical system, has longer life expectancies than America, and a better quality of life during those years.

Take the blinders off. There is plenty to be learned from the way others do things. Both what NOT to do (Russia, China, etc.) and what TO do (Europe).

@taney71: I could continue my subtle sarcasm and call you a tool of the banks brain-washed by Fox News in response to your reasoned arguments, but I'll drop it say - you are absolutely correct in your assertions.

People on this board hate that Bernie Madoff guy but are so willing to scam their children and others.

Saying that people "shouldn't take out student loans they can't afford to pay back" is asking students entering school to look 4, 5, 6, 20 years into the future of the life of their loans and know exactly what the economy and their career paths are going to look like. It's not just "oh a few people get shit on," but most people can't avoid taking out loans that then put them into a kind of lifetime debtor's prison.

It's myopic to put all the blame on students when the system forces them to take out loan upon loan just to get the base level of education needed to get and remain employed.

Im all for a government card, based on the condition that god help us they don't let the lobbyists add their two cents. The process is transparent and the terms/conditions are easy to understand for anyone (ie: not 10 pages of legalese). Tack on incentives to make taxpayers use the card responsibly and/or save more and you may just have a good system.

Plus, that misses his point, which is "don't spend it if you can't afford it"

More importantly this company would cost the government money from the start which means higher taxes and bigger government for no reason except to reward certain people.

@Corporate-Shill:
...never mind, I'm tapping out on this one.

Besides that a credit card company will be financied by tax dollars. It is ok if you aren't the one being taxed and the way Obama is going poor people aren't just getting off on that but actually being paid other people's money. This is just stupid.

@Esquire99:
As someone who's tried to buy a home, if you make over a certain ammount or can actually reasonably afford a home you are SOL. back to the open market for you.

And again, this would help someone qualify for an open market home loan, not just a restrictive governemtn/hud/fannie mae type deal.

Starter cards generally come with either high entrance and yearly fees, or insanely high intrest rates.

So no, none of those things are in place the way a government backed CC could accomplish.

Unfortunately, a lot of the current law students are going through the same thing right now. Many firms are laying off, cutting summer programs and deferring start dates. Some students who have summer gigs lined up will come out with offers and have no trouble paying back their loans. Some will get no-offered and will have a hard time making their loan payments, but they will still, over their lifetime, most likely substantially out-earn the average american. Trust me, I'm intimately familiar with the concept that it's basically a one-shot deal for BigLaw, but I certainly don't feel like I shouldn't have to pay back my loans if it doesn't work out.

@Ricky Jones:
newsflash:

THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN A "SOCIALIST COUNTRY" SINCE 1935 WITH THE SIGNING INTO LAW OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Now back to more WARBLGARBLS'D

fark NO.

I don't need to send any more $ to Washington than absolutely neccessary.

Oh, btw, how would you like to explain to Uncle Stupid your habbit of buying worm crushing p_rn? Nope? Yep, that is what I thought.

They're not defaulting, but I have plenty of classmates who will be paying off student loans until they're literally 60 or 70 years old. That's simply unreasonable. If you don't go right to that top-firm job after graduation, it's a difficult transition to make later on, and there simply wasn't the top-firm work right after 9/11. They didn't make poor decisions -- they got hit with a horrific economic event. But their top-firm earning potential is gone unless they went right to that top firm ... and they still have top-level loans to pay off.

1. What's wrong with credit cards, when properly used?

2. Note that the article points out that the government makes a profit when charging as little as 8% APR. Taxpayers win.

3. No.

4. The post office is an independent agency and required to provide service, even to areas where it is not financially feasible to provide door-to-door service six days a week. Note that the article assumes that credit would only be issued to credit worthy customers, i.e. those who will turn a profit for the program.

5. See #4 above.

6. Then who backs it? A company, once again only interested in profit.

When someone gives you everything, then they can take everything away.

Absolutely right! Like Amex closing accounts, and Citi reducing credit lines, and Chase increasing fees...

1. The government now promotes credit cards, so credit cards get the appearance of being good. Whats next paycheck lending services.

2. for us good consumers who dont use credit cards we will have to pay for the ones who do, with tax payer dollars.

3. Can you see the government shutting down all other credit cards and placing higher taxes on them just to run out of business.

4. just look how well the post office is run.

5.It is socialism and socialism is bad, with socialism you lose a basic freedom, the freedom to choose how you spend your money. The government is not good a running business, when is the last time you went to the postal service and had a good experience.

6. Just go to the credit union, its like a government backed credit card without the government.

When someone gives you everything, then they can take everything away.

@Trai_Dep: I agree. As the text above explains, we already have examples of this with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And these institutions are so wildly successful, why not use this model to get government more and more involved in private industry?

As for France, Germany, and India; sure their economies are even worse than ours but that has absolutely nothing to do with their overbearing forms of government.

Again, I like the idea... but I'm yet to be convinced that it's necesarry.

Theoretically, if enough revenue was generated, my taxes could be lowered. We all know it wouldn't work out that way, though.

@joellevand:
this thread of comments has the WARBLGARBL turned up to 11

I think this is a great idea, and here's why.

Americans are sorely under educated on credit usage. Yet credit is the cornerstone of our economic system now. Without credit you can't buy a home, buy a vehicle for transportation, rent a car, get some jobs, etc.

You're not someone until you owe someone else it seems.

So having a government sponsored credit card, even a small limit card could have huge benifits. It could help somoene establish credit as early as possible and enable FICO to better gauge someone's credit worthiness for things like student loans, first cars, first homes, etc.

It gives the government a chance to educate people on responsible credit usage.

And as has been mentioned, would signifigantly encourage Banks to lower exorbanant intrest rates and fees to compete.

Credit-worthy borrowers in Germany, France, and India all have access to low-interest, no-fee credit cards issued by their central banks

I'm having a hard time finding any information about how these German, French, and Indian central bank credit cards work. Are there any links? It'd be nice to see how they work elsewhere before commenting.

BTW Googling "german national credit card" the first link that comes up is entitled "Huge security breach for German credit cards" and searches for "french national credit card" yield information about a program involving their National ID card - methinks this doesn't bode well.

Banks have been allowed to cherry-pick, manipulate interest rates and have been given free reign with fees and it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see the banking industry given a dope-slap to the face. Perhaps just the mere threat of a central-bank credit card might give the banks incentive to be a little more responsive to the individual consumer.

The downside to this? I'm no survivalist or anything, but don't think I'd want the government to have a record of everything I've bought. It would be too easy for the central bank to hand over your records to the IRS or law enforcement for whatever nefarious purposes they decide to use them for.

@WiglyWorm:

WARBL GARBL

@wcnghj:
ones for credit challeneged people that would most benifit from this do though...

I just wish I didn't have to be stuck living in Texas. *le sigh* I miss my health care and so much more...

Personally, I don't believe in personal bankruptcy, except in incredibly limited and exceptional circumstances. I don't think people should be able to so easily walk away from their obligations. Granted, there are some very, very narrow circumstances in which I understand that bankruptcy is needed, but I feel like the current laws are way, way to loose and allow people to run up debt, live the good life for awhile, then walk away when they finally roll snake eyes. I realize that's a bit over-simplistic, but it gets my point across.

In 2003 I knew a guy who got into a car accident and his insurance, essentially, bailed on him. Between being sued and suing the insurance company, he went six-figures into debt. Because of the physical injuries, he was out of work for several months and ended up losing his job. To get health insurance, he started working as a store manager at a store in the mall. He also had to file for bankruptcy -- which discharged his credit cards, but not the student loans he was paying on.

Sometimes, just sometimes, shit happens to people. Because we're human, we're not perfect, and when we act imperfectly, bad things tend to happen.

@Crystal Wojcinski:

I personally fully endorse the idea of making EVERY purchase with a credit card. It makes little to no sense not to do so for a number of reasons, such as:

1. You get the CC company backing you up on every purchase. Massive benefit, and the most important. You essentially don't ever have to worry about getting screwed over by a shifty merchant...just reverse the charges and you're home free. This, in and of itself, is more than enough cause to use a CC to pay for everything.

2. It's important to pay off your balance every month, to not get hit with interest. Granted that you do, you leave your own money in an interest-bearing account a little longer, and make a little more money yourself.

3. Get credit cards that have cashback. I have a discover and a Mastercard that both have cashback. Or, you know, points or something else. Should never, ever use a card that doesn't give you an incentive to use it.

4. Credit score. Consumerist readers don't need any more schooling on this.

The government could set their interest rates at whatever low rate they wanted to compete with banks, and anyone who doesn't pay the card gets the balanced tacked onto their IRS balance.

What would stop congress from increasing the rate? 1. competition with other banks, 2. legislation that prevents them increasing it beyond x basis above the fed rate.

I'm NOT saying the government should run it like a government dept, but buy up any bank (Amex, discovery etc) that go under, and use their assets and people to administer the bank.

Also frank64... Mastercard and Visa are just service providers, the government could just as easily use them. Amex and Discovery and Cap One are differnt in that they FUND the credit card as well (Visa and mastercard only process the transaction they don't hold the balance, the issuing bank does that), so the government wouldn't have to setup a 'new' system.

The AJC actually just had an interesting article about how that is losing its relevance in today's America. Hopefully as the baby boomers keep dying off we can start to live in a slightly more equal world without fear that the russians are infiltrating our society just because we are living up to our social obligation to help those less fortunate...

[www.ajc.com]

Oh, also, I'm all for a government credit card. They could perhaps use some of the interest to sustain social security or fund education.

I say partner with the big 4, or at least license their networks, and that way some money still goes into the private sector in the form of transaction fees. Heck, I'd like to see them all compete over the contract. This removes the government from having to set up and maintain the infrastructure to process said transactions.

All minorities would get a 100 point FICO score credit.

LMAO... well played, sir. Well played.

In other words, I'd rather vote with my ballot than with my wallet. Ballots were made for voting. Wallets weren't.

i dont understand why one option is "SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM!"

It's like america that is a de-facto bad thing.

better have some damn good rewards, though! hahaha

@Esquire99:
Lets see Fannie and Freddie have both had massive accounting scandals and HUD regulated both of them. The Washington post had an article that claimed that Fannie and Freddie were responsible for the subprime crises and we want to give them more power. If it was to help people that could not afford a credit card than it is bad (subprime loans crises) or if the government wants to put the credit card companies out of business than that is bad. I don't know why we want to emulate Europe being some countries have over %20 unemployment.

@rugman11:
I agree that this would be one of the worst ideas because of that reason. Credit cards are bad but at least you can get rid of the debt via bankruptcy but the government you will be in debt for the rest of your life. You thought credit card companies were bad wait until they know the only way out is death.

I really think banks get away with these "gotcha" fees and rate hikes because people accepted them. Whenever I got hit with a late fee, I complain, and then complained and in one or two cases canceled. After I canceled they waived the fees and I agreed to reopen my account. You just have to say no.

If they made smart credit decisions they could make obscene profits already without the tricks to get people to pay extra. They just got real, real greedy.

Like a lot of trial balloons, the devil (or any other favorite expression of nastiness) is in the details (as other commenters have said).

The concept sounds intriguing, but on the face of it, I'll pass.

I have not had a credit card for decades specifically because of the games the banks play. If I could obtain a no frills card without the games I would give it serious consideration.

Where would it stop? Why not groceries? Isn't food a basic human need? The government good buy grocery stores and save us a bundle!

It does go to show us how far the pendulum has swung. We could become the new Europe.

Say you have a nice low 6% interest rate on the NatCard. Congress comes along and says 'we need to raise money for _____, we can do that by tacking on a paltry .25% on the NatCard interest rate'. Ok, now you're up to 6.25%, but the cow's out of the barn now. Next session, well they did it, we can do it. Next thing you know you're up to 12% because of folks screaming 'think of the children!'. Eventually private industry would come out with their own card to compete. They'd either have a lower interest rate or some other outrageous perk, but it would have to be good to take on the backed by the treasury pledge.

Another reason, there's no link now, but what about if nationalized health care comes to be? Suddenly you have a group that knows you purchased a box of Betty Crocker brownies on your NatCard and blames that for your diabetes, never mind that you made them for a school bake sale. So now your tier of payment for the national health plan goes up as your share of the obesity tax that came along with the program (to help pay for it).

Next up, we have a national purchasing database used by DHS to look for suspicious combos of items. I'm not saying they don't try to do that now, but if you were using the one card in town to buy nitrogen rich fertilizer you better own a pretty big farm or you've got some explaining to do.

I agree with you Trai on the no frills idea of a credit card. So it's the credit card that Consumerist constantly preaches to take oversees when you travel or to save for emergencies. It helps builds a baseline credit and has built in limits to prevent people from building up silly amouns of debt.
But I still say cards won't compete. They will cry foul. We all know their entire earnings portfolio is based on gouging the consumer on fees and penalties.

Btw..LOl what do you say is a "sexy" card?

Hey, if it's structured so that market-based alternatives can compete fairly, it'd be a win for consumers. It wouldn't be sexy, it would be utilitarian and it'd probably have relatively low limits. But it'd provide a good baseline, no-frills alternative. Private card issuers could compete with more offerings or better service and everyone wins.
I'd want to have sensible limits on who's eligible, though: no sub-prime borrowers (or low limits and/or security deposit and/or education as part of the bundle.
And, every year, any outstanding, overdue balances are deducted from tax refunds, where applicable.

I'll take a pass on any credit card. But, makes you wonder if a government issued card with low or no fees force CC companies to stop the gouging.
Actually, knowing them they would cry foul and sue ala what big name high speed companies are doing against towns starting their own high speed service.
"Oh noez we can't compete when the consumer is treated fairly!"

I think if they did it, all they have to do is use one of the banks they take over or are bailing out. They could just tell the bank what to change. Lower the rates and eliminate the "gotcha" fees. They would have to replace the leaders, because I fear those there now would have no concept of fairness.

if there was one government run credit card, they'd have no incentive to offer better perks, interest, anything than any other company.

All we need is Barney Frank to get in there and take any personal responsibility away from granting credit. It would end up being a costly mess, with all kinds of social initiatives.

Of course, if it's designed correctly, then the banks that took advantage of the program could be required by contract (must stronger legal support than law, actually) to limit fees and rates.

But if I did, I think I would rather use this than one where I get hit with stupid-fees. I'd need all the details on the gov't card to be sure one way or the other, though.