I will admit it -- "wealth re-distribution" is a problem, a big problem, and it has been for some time. IMO, we do need the administration to address this problem. But it is NOT the problem that we are hearing about from the disingenuous insincere and/or just play stupid "pundits" and politicians who are screaming that Obama is a "socialist".
Wealth re-distribution has been occurring on a wide and whole-sale basis since the deregulation of the credit card and banking industries, and the passing of the "Universal Default" law. There have already been various diaries about the problems with credit card rates, but let's call it what it is -- blatant "wealth distribution", from the middle class, to the banks...
Limits on interest rates have been removed. Banks routinely charge over 20%, even over 30% (29.99% is fairly common). Various rationals have been offered:
"You are a bad risk" -- If I am a bad risk, why are you offering me credit? Why not close my card, and have me pay it off at a reasonable rate? NO -- the banks will accept giving credit to "bad risks", only if they can charge such a huge interest rate that they are guaranteed to either push the person into default, or make an unconscionable profit (or both). Totally illogical. Yes, you are allowed to close the card and refuse the increase, but many people and businesses needs short-term credit to survive, and that is not always an easy option. This is nothing but a "re-distribution of wealth" from those struggling to make ends meet, to the banks.
"It's just business, the economy has changed." Well, well, well -- so the bank is doing poorly, and to help them out, they are retroactively charging more for the same service, within a non-competitive environment (since outstanding debt cannot "in this environment" be easily transferred to another creditor). The fees no long represent a "fair price", they are just "what the banks need." That is not capitalism. Capitalism demands fair competition, and fair negotiation of contracts. Raising fees in a non-competitive environment, with no chance for negotiation, purely to meet the needs of one side is again -- nothing more than a "re-distribution of wealth" from those who need credit to maintain personally or a small business, to the banks.
"You are in default under the Universal Default Law". So if I got underwater with my house -- let's not get into whose "fault" it is, whether it was my mistake, a fraudulent mortgage, or whatever -- but I have a continuing 20+ year history of never missing a payment on my credit cards, I am now technically "in default", and I can have my interest rate raised to 30%. Somehow, it doesn't seem to work both ways -- if the bank has financial problems, and requires a bailout, that doesn't allow me to penalize them. And again, is that how capitalism works? Upholding a contract for 20+ years becomes irrelevant, if I have encountered a problem that is totally unrelated, and not in any manner impacting my ability to fulfill this contract? Once again, this is nothing more than an excuse for a "re-distribution of wealth", in favor of one specific segment of society, at the expense of another specific segment of society.
IMHO, we need a consumer revolt, to STOP THE RE-DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. It's not right, it's not fair, and it's anti-capitalistic. But the calling of Obama a "socialist" is a smoke-screen to try to blind the public to the real re-distribution of wealth that has been taking place, and is destroying our economy and our country.
I am not a lawyer, I don't know what the consequences would be, but what if every one arose and informed that banks with whom they have credit cards in good standing that we will pay no more than (let's say) 8% -- certainly a fair rate of return, relative to what they are paying for taxpayer bailout money. That is not asking for a "bailout", it is not asking for a rescue, it is not asking to be excused of legitimate debt -- it is only an attempt to negotiate a fair contract, consistent with our capitalist system. If the political system won't take up this fight (the changes in credit card laws agree to thus far will not even take effect for over a year, and are of no current use), maybe a consumer revolt is in order.