It’s no secret that credit card companies aren’t always up front with their customers. There’s no way to truly know what you’re getting into when applying for a credit card unless you meticulously read the fine print (something few people have the time or patience for).

In case your one of these people who have better things to do than read your credit card agreement all weekend, here is a quick checklist of the absolutely essential information you should look for on your credit card application before you apply:

This guest post was written by Bob Brooks, host of the Prudent Money Radio Show and President of Prudent Money Financial Services. For more information please visit www.prudentmoney.com.

About a year ago, I wrote that things might really start to change in the process of how credit card companies go after consumers who have defaulted on their accounts.

A credit card agreement isn’t anyone’s first choice for reading material. The language is arduous and the terms are intentionally vague. That being said, it’s still important for consumers to understand the message that they are ambiguously trying to convey. The new credit card law (Credit CARD Act) was supposed to bring clarity, but some credit card companies are using old tricks in order to keep consumers in the dark regarding their protection from interest rate increases.

It used to be that credit card companies, such as Chase, Bank of America, Citi, and American Express, could re-price your APR on your entire balance for any reason and at any time. All they had to do was give you notice and there wasn’t a lot that you could do to avoid the increase. The CARD Act has certainly made the rules around rate increases better for consumers – but that hasn’t stopped credit card companies from trying to make you think otherwise. Although the fine print is confusing, you should rest easy knowing that the consumer protection rules in the CARD Act apply to all credit cards, with the exception of business credit cards.

This guest post is written by Ted Higgins, a financial writer for the Total Bankruptcy Blog.

During the World Cup, soccer players will flop, feign, and fall in order to draw penalties against their opponents. Unfortunately, this sort of scamming also occurs away from the field. In fact, major international events like the World Cup create a golden opportunity for criminals operating credit card scams.

Running your own business takes energy, organization – and a whole lot of money. Using a credit card for funding a small business can provide you with the resources you need when you don’t have the cash. However, due to small business credit cards’ exclusion from protection under the Credit CARD Act, you should think twice before carrying a balance on your small business credit card.

Even though it’s called a business credit card, the business owner is still personally responsible for the debt incurred at the end of the day. Since the owner is assuming this risk already, it makes sense to use a personal credit card for purposes such as funding or any other expense that you can’t pay back right away. This way the Credit CARD Act will provide the protection you need when carrying a balance.

As we all know, the Credit CARD Act that came into effect earlier this year was meant to protect consumers from egregious practices by the credit card companies. By and large, the new rules do a good job in accomplishing this goal. However, there was one revision in the final draft of the bill around payment allocation that does not have the consumer’s best interest at heart.

The new payment allocation rules state that any payment above the minimum must be applied to the balance with the highest APR first. While this is an improvement from the previous payment allocation rules, it still offers no benefit to people who can only afford to pay the minimum payment each month – that’s 29 percent of Americans according to a FINRA National Survey.

A couple of checking accounts that come with worthwhile incentives might be of interest to you: one offers tunes, the other, cash.

Florence Savings Bank has a “FreeTunes Checking” account with no minimum balance, no monthly fees, and nationwide ATM refunds. On top of those bonuses, FSB offers free iTunes® downloads at sign up and then monthly, so long as you maintain qualifying status. Pretty neat. The account is only available to those who live in Western Massachusetts, though.

In a recent Market Watch article, David Weidner commented that Citibank is attempting to create a new product, the CLX, which acts as insurance against financial collapse.  The product sounds, as Weidner deftly points out, a lot like the Credit Default Swaps that helped cause our current recession.  It involves the same risks and is being endorsed using the same shaky justifications.

The problem with financial products like the CDS or the CLX is, first and foremost, that it is unclear who covers the ‘bet.’ If financial collapse does happen, and Citibank is to make good on their CLXs, what guarantee is there that Citibank will be in a position, post-collapse, to honor its obligations?  And if it isn’t in a position to honor those obligations, who does?  What’s clear after the fallout of the CDS scandal is that the responsibility of paying off the debts of ‘too big to fail’ financial institutions inevitably falls on the American tax payer.

Nobel Prize-winning economist and Columbia Business School professor, Joseph Stiglitz argues in this interview that we are headed for another collapse.  His arguments are sound and should be listened to.

It is frustrating that American banks, post bailout, are paying out record bonuses given that many of those banks would not be in business if they hadn’t received a handout at the tax payers’ expense.  In response, President Obama is now threatening to heavily tax these bonuses to send the banking industry the message that the American people will not stand for such behavior.  The depiction of these banks in the media and by the government, however, is far too simplified.  Not all banks are the same.  Some banks simply didn’t need the bailout and other banks received aid indirectly when the government bailed out their debtors.

For a company like AIG, the issue is quite clear.  They would have failed had we not bailed them out.  As a result, we now own most of their company.  AIG clearly shouldn’t give their executives a bonus.  Moreover, as shareholders, we have every right to demand that those executives don’t get a bonus.  On the other hand, some banks didn’t need a bailout.  Capital One, for instance, was forced to take the government’s money so as to help stabilize the economic disaster.  Their cooperation helped conceal the real problem areas (i.e. Citibank and Bank of America), thus preventing investors from cutting and running on companies that desperately required the bailout to stay afloat.  Those banks which didn’t need the bailout repaid that money almost immediately and they shouldn’t be penalized.  If anything, they should be rewarded for helping the American economy stay afloat and for having a sustainable business model when, all around them, other giants of their industry were toppling.

I had a fascinating conversation with Mr. Herb Weisbaum, AKA the MSNBC.com ConsumerMan, about the scams we should all be aware of. It was an eye-opening conversation, one that I hope will save you a lot of pain and anguish.

Surprisingly, your credit card account is not on the scammers’ most-wanted list. “Con artists are trying not to use credit cards [in their scams] because the charges can be reversed,” Weisbaum said.

The board of the UK Payments Council, a body composed of England’s top banks, has voted to phase out paper checks by 2018.  With the rise of electronic bill pay, the old tried and true method of paying by check is becoming, not only obsolete, but also expensive.  According to a Reuter’s report, it costs nearly a British pound (roughly $2) to process a check.

We ought to see this as a sign of things to come for the U.S. as well.  Our banks and economy, similar to Britain’s, are moving towards greater streamlining through electronic payments.  People demand the speed and efficiency of electronic and on-line banking.  The paper check has already become obsolete for many purchases (on-line shopping, for instance), and retailers are increasingly refusing to accept personal checks as a means of payment.  Many retailers see checks as an unnecessary invitation to fraud.  Others see it as an unnecessary complication in payment processing relative to the debit card efficiency and speed.

Our government suffers from a naivete with some of its plans to resuscitate the economy which consumers simply cannot afford.  To be more specific, the current administration needs to come to terms with the fact that business practices are dictated by laws and potential for profit.  Businesses cannot, and should not, be counted on to change their policies out of the goodness of their hearts.

Last March, the Obama administration put into place its Mortgage Relief Plan to help homeowners stay out of foreclosure by urging banks to institute loan modifications for borrowers.  Renegotiation of their loans would allow borrowers to make payments on a more affordable rate, allowing them, in theory, to keep homes that would otherwise go into foreclosure.  Since its launch last March, the plan has provided permanent loan modifications to only 4% of those who have attempted to sign up.  Lenders like Bank of America have helped only .06% of the people who’ve requested a modification.

It’s almost to the point that I don’t want to read the Business section anymore. Are you with me? And cognizant as I am that “if it bleeds, it leads,” it’s time for a feel-good financial-services story. So I emailed Liz Pulliam Weston, nationally syndicated personal-finance writer and author of many books, to “get her thoughts on the best and worst financial products and services of 2009.”

Tell you what: the woman’s smart with a capital MART, but I was surprised by her answer.

Citibank is suspending foreclosures and evictions for the holiday season.  For 30 days, from December 18th through January 17th, Citibank is offering a reprieve to borrowers whose loans are owned by Citibank Corporation.  The company reports that it will help about 4,000 borrowers who are either scheduled to be evicted, or scheduled to receive notice of eviction during this period.

Citibank deserves to be commended for this act.  In the general state of the American economy as it stands right now, lending institutions are placed in a precarious position where they have to implement tough policies to keep their businesses afloat.  It seems that Americans are increasingly turning to lending institutions as a solution to this recession as well as a scapegoat for this nation’s economic troubles.  All too often we hear that either our economic crisis was the result of banks giving out bad loans (which it was), or that economic recovery depends on lenders lowering the minimum requirements for loan qualification (which it does not).