• _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    59 minutes ago

    Strange how every time somebody takes an idea Republicans spouted that would actually help people, and decide to run with it, conservatives suddenly aren’t so keen on the idea anymore.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Theres about 0% chance of this happening without something totally catastrophic being bundled alongside it, like allowing creditors to come into debtors homes and beat them with sticks.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    What that would actually mean is a complete lock-out on credit cards for the poor.

    • _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I don’t see that as a real problem. Because as it is now, credit cards are something poor people should avoid at all costs.

      • GHiLA@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        No, it’s a thing idiots should avoid at all costs.

        A card with a 2% reward across the board(Fidelity for instance) can be used as a proxy for your debit card week to week.

        It builds my credit, gives me a group of attack dogs to sic on anyone who rips me off, and gives me a cushion if I ever need it. If you never exceed your expenses and never reach beyond your means, it’s no different in consequence than paying with anything else, with a little added bonus credit and reward.

        It’s people and their lack of self control that ruin credit cards.

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Actually asking, not rhetorical: if poor people are already getting charged based on what they can afford, would this policy exert a downward force on prices?

      So way less financing options, slightly more buying outright?

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Problem is the assumption that prices would go down if some people cannot afford it.

        Whats happening instead is people going hungry and homeless.

        The reason for this is that Supply:Demand Equilibrium is further up in price range where fewer sales at higher value yields the maximum profit.

    • MirthfulAlembic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Considering how many Americans have crippling credit card debt, especially poor people, would that be worse? I’m sure they’d still offer those credit builder cards with low limits that you have to deposit collateral for the limit.

      • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Don’t Americans have a thing called Credit Score. If you are not paying off debt you don’t build up a score and good luck getting a mortgage without one.

        • MirthfulAlembic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          It’s a combination of factors. Having debt itself isn’t as important as payment history, age of accounts, etc. Credit card debt is probably the opposite of helpful; paying off a card every month in full for a long time is much more useful.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I’d expect a lot more use of buy now pay later schemes like Klarna.

        It’s similar to a credit card, but prevents build up of crippling debt.

        I personally use my credit card and pay in full each month, not because I need the credit, but because in the UK you get the benefit of Section 75 protection on purchases. I’ve used that a few times when companies have gone bust. If I’d paid on debit card I’d have been screwed.

        • uranibaba@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Buy now, pay later does not prevent crippling debt. It makes it easy to buy without thinking or realising the actual cost. It makes is easy to stack up invoices that you in the end can’t afford.

    • Jtotheb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Sure, if we presuppose that credit cards exist as a way for a middleman company to make a huge profit and pay their CEO tens of millions of dollars annually. If we instead consider them a regulatable utility, the necessary rates for viable operation go pretty far down. The business model of “convenience is free or even costs less than cash for those who already have plenty, and this convenience is funded by the destitute who are being held down by the exact same people” is also suspect to begin with, and I’d rather DiSrUpT tHe EcOnOmY than remain complicit, which I am

  • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Trump promises require GOP to back him up to ever get close to being implemented. GOP have always voted against bank regulation/extortion limiting. People earning tips are not big GOP donors, so fuck them. Taxes on SS are only paid by richest SS earners, but GOP have been going around on trying to get overall SS cuts.

    Any promise not Project 2025 is politician lip moving meant to bring Project 2025.

    • rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Since trump’s party controls the entire gov right now he is going to be pissed when he learns he can’t blame his failures on the dems for most of the country.

      • Vox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        4 hours ago

        He absolutely still can, his voting bloc is full of low information voters that just want validation for the racist/misogynistic hate they feel

      • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Key dem senators were bribed to sabotage Biden’s climate and other agendas. Confirmations for any anti pharma/war cabinet picks are certainly bribable. Gaetz is no problem, even if fuss made, though. There is some hope that the stupidity of destroying EVs and IRA gets blocked. Spending $1T to deport millions is going to have lobbyists intervene too.

      • IamtheMorgz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 hours ago

        As someone who has never paid a dime in interest on any card I’ve ever had, and shops around for the best reward options… Yeah, give us the 10%!

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Nah. Rewards cards live and die on transaction fees. They generally go to people with credit knowledge that know to pay off the card at the end of the month.

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      They shouldn’t exist in the first place.

      The space for them exists within the monology over transactions that shouldn’t generate margins that high.

    • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      4 hours ago

      If Dems all act eager to act on Trump’s actually good promises (untaxed tips for instance), it’ll bite the GOP that much more when he backs out of those promises

      • EpeeGnome@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I hope so, but they’ll just blame the Dems anyway and they core voters will just believe it.

  • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    206
    ·
    11 hours ago

    LOL, Bernie knows that’s never going to happen. He’s just reminding the world of an empty promise that trump made, and openly offering his help so that Trump can’t say the Democrats blocked him. He’ll still say it, but there will be readily available evidence to the contrary, not that that’s ever mattered before.

    • GraniteM@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      57 minutes ago

      Trump Admin: Cap interest rates at 10%, but also we repeal the thirteenth amendment.

      Democrats: No! What is wrong with you?!

      Republicans: DEMONRATS WON’T WORK WITH US TO CAP INTEREST RATES AND ALSO THEY DRINK SMOOTHIES MADE OF BABIES!

      Republican Voting Base: [Thunderous applause. 90% voter turnout. 99% voter loyalty.]

      Everyone Else: I dunno, both parties seem the same. [Sub-50% voter turnout. Interfactional backstabbing intensifies.]

  • BMTea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Might be my background - lived half my life in a country where credit cards are interest-free for religious purposes - but 10% still seems insane.

    • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Compare that to the ~30% I’ve seen, that’s sadly an amazing shift (lol, which won’t ever happen with the fascist caucus), but I commend Bernie for trying.

    • Asidonhopo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I’d never heard of this, how do the banks make any money on the card, annual fees or something?

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          That’s a good point - there are transaction fees that could support the business. And we even inflate those with cash back and other rewards

        • zqps@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Which is an insane return by itself if people use their cards for everything, as they do in the US.

        • BMTea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          No, we had a flat annual fee for usage. There was a fee for withdrawing cash but no making purchases.

      • FleetingTit@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Processing or transaction fees. Anytime you use your card for a purchase the bank gets a cut of that. This fee can range from .1% to 4%, depending on the credit card processor.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 hours ago

      It doesn’t matter if he lied. Whenever he accidentally says the correct thing, he needs to be praised. That’s how you get him to do stuff. Bernie has the right idea here. Pat this dumb motherfucker on the back and make him feel smart every time he has a broken-clock moment. That way he’ll follow through.

  • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Wow, Bernie is willing to work with actual Hitler?? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      I read this more as “put up or shut up”. The donvict spews forth floods of verbal diarrhea, hoping no one is willing to look too closely or even remember the specific colors and chunks. This is Bernie fishing out a juicy chunk and saying: let’s go

  • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    161
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    14 hours ago

    I know Bernie is being polite and playing politics, but let’s be honest: Trump keeping this promise is about as likely as Hell freezing over.

    • MimicJar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      246
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      It’s not polite, it’s calling him out. Trump will say/lie about anything. At one point Trump said exactly this. He didn’t mean it, he just said some shit.

      Bernie is repeating his own words because occasionally Trump says something good without any intent to follow up.

      So Bernie is taking him at his word. He knows Trump will never do it, but if he can call the hypocrite out and trick him into agreeing, why not?

      To want to talk about 4D Chess? There it is.

  • mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    Why doesn’t Bernie understand Trump was just joking when he said that?!

    Talk about owning the libs!

    Bernie can’t even get a joke!

  • Sprokes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    9 hours ago

    What good things that Trump did promise? I am surprised that he promised this even though we know that it won’t happen.

    • thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Populists promise lots of good things; it’s just that most ring-wing populists tend to have their fingers crossed behind their back.

      • Pasta Dental@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        It’s not about right wing or left wing populists. All populists lie because the only thing they want is to see their face on TV and to be in power.

    • EvacuateSoul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I work blue collar, and lots of us are hopeful he will do the tax free overtime. I think he was just saying that, and I didn’t vote for him, but that would be game changer.

      • .Donuts@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Would it be a game changer? It means you can do overtime without being taxed for it, right? Or maybe less taxed.

        That sounds like a quick and dirty way to exhaust the population even more in order to keep the bread and circus going on.

        So you got the folks working 60-100 hours a week then because it makes them a lot more money, so they are just slaving their life away. Wouldn’t a better fix be raising minimum wages?

        • Pandemanium@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          What people misunderstand about the tax brackets is that your entire income doesn’t get moved to a higher bracket. It’s only the income in excess of it.

          So for example, let’s say you had $50,000 of taxable income in 2024 as a single filer, you’d pay 10% on that first $11,600 and 12% on the chunk of income between $11,601 and $47,150. Then you’d pay 22% on the remaining $2,850 that falls into the next tax bracket. The total bill would be about $6,053 — about 12% of your taxable income — even though your highest bracket is 22%. And this example doesn’t take into account the standard deduction.

          Bottom line, this won’t save people as much as they think it will. Usually the person in the example simply complains “I’m paying 22%” because it always feels like the paycheck isn’t enough.

        • andros_rex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 hours ago

          What’ll actually happen under the Trump administration is that companies will be allowed to force mandatory overtime during the times they want it, and then cut your hours through the rest of the month so that your average hours are still less than 40.

          What I’d like is some changes in loopholes. I worked 60-100 weeks at a movie theater as a young adult, and didn’t get overtime pay because it was the “entertainment industry.”

        • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I’m not the person you’re replying to, but though I agree that raising the minimum wage would be helpful, plenty of people are working overtime as is, even if they make more than 15/hr just to make ends meet. Plenty of people are working overtime for 20-30/hr. Would their wages go up if minimum wage went up? Maybe, but likely not and there’s certainly no guarantee. Plus, several states already have 15 as the minimum so it wouldn’t really matter to them.

          I’m a dem voter, and obviously there are much better ways to help people than tax free overtime, but I understand why that would be appealing.

        • Evil_incarnate@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Smart workers then get contracts that specify anything over two hours a week is overtime.