It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Americans Falling Behind on Credit Card Payments at Alarming Rate

page: 12
8
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:
apc

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   
What about check card purchases. They work just like credit cards, right?


So you think it's perfectly OK for banks to coax people into borrowing significant amounts of money, at an interest rate they could afford, and then the moment life happens for that person, increase their interest rate 300% or more? You think the bank should then be able to lay claim to the borrower's property, their paycheck for instance, in order to force them to pay the inflated interest over the next twenty years? That's kosher to you?

Please, what are your thoughts on this? Do be detailed in your response. Take as long as you need.




posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


LOL about the check cards. We won't go there again.


Yes, its perfectly kosher with me - ASSUMING that the person who entered into the credit contract signed an agreement that said the bank could raise the interest at any time for any reason, up to 300%. Anyone that would sign such an agreement, after reading the terms, deserves whatever they get from it. You have a right not to sign any contract with terms you don't agree with. If you sign such an absurd contract, enjoy!

No need to be detailed, its quite simple. Of course it's easy to try to advocate for your viewpoint when you offer an extreme situation that will never happen, isn't it?



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Well, sometimes I post comments that are easily interpreted in ways that I did not intend. I can see how you might have reached your conclusion.

The point I tried to make is;

Laws are written to establish what is reasonable and fair, especially laws that govern contracts. The courts look at what the intent of the law was when it was written, which means that they consider what is fair, but that doesn't mean that you bring a lawsuit that says this was unfair. You have to base your law suit on existing laws. If you think that you are in a contract that is not fair, do some research, you might be right, and you might have a valid reason to challenge the contract.

Most of what is purchased with credit cards is not something that can be recovered, like airline tickets or DVDs. These things normally become worthless or greatly reduced in value shortly after purchase or use.

I see no reason why my tax dollars should be spent recovering money that should never have been lent in the first place.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   
And any bank willing to write such ridiculous terms deserves to lose the money they loaned out under said conditions.

I say, good luck collecting on that loan.


apc

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by LightinDarkness
 


It happens every single day on college campuses across the country. The worst is in working homes. Parents that had their credit card for years, only to have their contract updated to include the wonderful Universal Default. It's a very recent practice you know. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the "credit crisis."

>
btw, I said increase 300%, not increase to 300%. That's title loans.



[edit on 27-12-2007 by apc]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


Oh really? Show me one single instance of where someone was forced to sign such an agreement.
Just one. I'll pay for their legal fees! When credit terms are updated to include universal default, the card holder has the right to end the contract and they get to repay any balance they have under the old terms.

In reality, all of these people in the end choose to get those products. I have no sympathy. They are adults, and if they are not, then they should obviously not be in public and be in a mental institution if they have mental problems so severe that they cannot comprehend the agreements they sign.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]


apc

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   
There aren't enough beds.

Telling people "I told you so" isn't going to fix anything. The nation has cancer.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Laws are not made to establish what is fair, laws are made to conform the behavior of a society into a standard of reasonableness that does not offend the sensibilities of the citizenry. Who gets to decide what is reasonable? That's the problem, and thats why standards of what is reasonable shifts and laws change to reflect those shifts.

It is perfectly reasonable to me to allow banks to offer any loan products they want. As long as ALL terms are disclosed to the borrower, and the borrower is not coerced into the loan product, I see no problem with it. Perfectly reasonable to me.

If you think a contract is not fair the court does not care. You can attempt to challenge the contract on other grounds, but you better have standing and be able to prove damages from the basis of that standing.

Tax dollars do not need to be spent recovering the bank's money. The banks do that themselves. I see no reason why we should stop the banks from recovering their money, within the means established to them by law.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


Yeah, the cancer of victimhood and not taking personal responsibility. I agree completely! One day people will stop blaming everyone else but themselves for their own problems.

But you will find no disagreement here. People can be stupid, and sign loans they do not understand. But that they do so does not mean its anyone's fault but their own.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]


apc

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   
The funny thing about cancer, is it tends to spread. Quickly. To uninvolved parts. Places you normally wouldn't think to look. Everywhere.



Originally posted by LightinDarkness
Laws are not made to establish what is fair, laws are made to conform the behavior of a society into a standard of reasonableness that does not offend the sensibilities of the citizenry.

Nice. Here I thought laws were supposed to be made only to protect others from being denied their life, liberty, or property. From a Libertarian perspective, that is.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Nice. Here I thought laws were supposed to be made only to protect others from being denied their life, liberty, or property. From a Libertarian perspective, that is.


Nice. Here I thought that you would be able to understand the difference between normative and positive view points.

OK class, lets review.

As a libertarian I would like for laws only to be made to protect the people from threats to their life, liberty, and property. This is called my normative perception of what I want the world to be. But I understand that the current system does not match this want. Thus, the positive nature of the law is, as I stated, to establish a sense of reasonableness not offensive to the citizenry. This is my perception of the world as it currently is.

Are you done yet trying to be witty? So far, it's not going to well...

[edit on 27-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   
LightinDarkness

Now you are just playing word games. If it is reasonable, then it is fair, if it is fair, then it is reasonable.

As per the example I provided with a link, when contracts are written that violate the laws that establish what contracts are permitted to include, then you can challenge that contract based on the law. Laws are written that establish what can be put into a contract, what the government has decided to be fair and or reasonable, and you can challenge a contract that you think is unfair as long as your case is brought on established law. This is the point I have made, and you have yet to prove me wrong, while I have provided evidence to support my position.

You wrote "Tax dollars do not need to be spent recovering the bank's money. The banks do that themselves." Then you state "I see no reason why we should stop the banks from recovering their money, within the means established to them by law." Somehow you don't seem to connect with the reality that recovering money within the means established by law costs tax payers money. The banks have to turn to the law to recover the money they lost through foolish lending practices, and this means spending tax dollars on the police and courts who must deal with the mess that the banks themselves created.

I have no problem with making borrowers responsible for their problems. The difference between you and me is that you think that the banks should not be punished for their foolish choices. I, on the other hand think that the banks who make bad loans should also be held responsible for their bad decisions.

Banks who loan people money who can not afford to pay back those loans do so of their own choice, and it is nobodies fault but their own. Why should the government act to protect those banks from their own foolish mistakes, any more than the government should act to protect people who foolishly borrow more than they can pay back.

You want the government to act to protect the banks, but not the people who borrow from banks. This is a double standard, and there is nothing reasonable about it.

If government is not going to get involved in writing laws that establish reasonable lending policies, then government should not get involved in collecting money from people who default on loans made without reasonable policies.

Banks who only write loans based on reasonable policies will prosper, while banks who practice predatory lending policies leading to people getting into debt over their heads and defaulting on those loans will go out of business. This seems reasonable to me.

What you want is a government that only acts to protect business interests, and does nothing to protect the rights of individuals.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


No. While fair and reasonable may seem the same in the everyday use of the english language, they are two entirely different concepts in philosophy and political science - and since this is law - they are appropriate disciplines to draw from.

For a law to be fair, it must be reasonable. The opposite is not true. Fairness is not necessary nor sufficient to establish whether a law is reasonable. A fair law would ensure equality of results, a reasonable law only requires ensuring equality of opportunity.

You can dispute a contract based only on the court's perception of reasonableness - and that does not include whether the contract is "fair" (as I thought we agreed on). Those standards of reasonableness basically encompasses the case law of good faith contract precedent, which includes: (1) whether the terms and conditions were known to both parties in full before agreement, (2) whether either party was coerced into an agreement, and (3) relief for externalities not addressed in the contract specifications.

Somehow you don't seem to connect with the reality that recovering money within the span of the law does not use tax payer money. When a creditor uses a bill collector agent - this costs nothing to the tax payers. If someone sues, court costs can be forced to be paid by the losing party. No money is used by tax payers, because the methods to collect do not involve using government power. When I say within the span of the law, that means banks should not do anything that is illegal to get their money: black mail, illegal threats, etc.

The difference between you and me is you think it is the governments job to punish business. I say the banks can stand or fall on their own merits. If they go under because they leant out risky loans, so be it. If they recover the properties and don't go under, so be it. If you want to use the government to punish businesses then are setting a bad precedent - by the way, that would also be costing tax payer money - I thought that was a concern for you?

I would advise you to actually read what I post - it would save you from saying things that are lies:


Originally posted by poet1b
You want the government to act to protect the banks, but not the people who borrow from banks. This is a double standard, and there is nothing reasonable about it.


See, this is why actually reading what I say is important if you are going to argue with me:


Originally posted by LightinDarkness
If it the banks fail, oh well. Government should not protect the banks.


So much for a double standard. I would however submit that reading what I type before making sweeping generalizations is indeed reasonable.

By the way, given your seeming inability to read what I say I'd be careful about telling me "what I want" in government. What I want is a government that does not interfere unless someone is deprived of their God given right to life, liberty, and property.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:25 AM
link   
LightinDarkness

Sorry, but fairness is not defined as equitable. If fairness is not considered in law, then why are there all these fairness acts? Try doing a google search.

Once again, you are playing word games.

You state "The difference between you and me is you think it is the governments job to punish business."

When business entities break laws they are and should be punished. This is another reality that you are trying to deny. As long as businesses follow the laws, they should not be punished.

Again, you state "I would advise you to actually read what I post".

Not only do I read your posts, I reply to direct points in your posts.

You state that "Somehow you don't seem to connect with the reality that recovering money within the span of the law does not use tax payer money."

Sorry, but banks do recover funds through legal action, and it does cost taxpayer money. Collection agencies are only used when the bank has no legal recourse or court costs are too high in relation to the amount owed. You want to pretend that the law isn't used to collect loans that have defaulted go ahead, but don't expect any credibility. This way you can conveniently pretend that government does not protect banks from their bad lending policies.

You need to realize that protecting individual rights creates some very complicated rules of law. These are very broad concepts, and not easily defined.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


LOL. There is a difference between equality and equality of outcomes. I refuse to explain all of these basic political science and legal concepts. I am not trying to be mean, but I seriously suggest you consult a introduction to political science book. Do you not understand that just because something is named "fair" does not mean it is fair in actuality? Thats called politicking, which is what happens when legislation is named. We do not call the budget the "Tax the People and Spend On Government Programs Act of 2008", we call it the "Federal Budget Act of 2008." Does the impact of the legislation change? No.

Once again, you do not understand that different words have different meanings. So you chalk it up to "word games." That you do not understand these different meanings is not my fault.

Businesses should not be punished - the only reality where they are is in your reality colored by political ideology. Businesses should rise and fall on their own merits, not because the government gets to "punish" them. Who gets to decide who gets to be punished? You? Who gets to decide how much tax payer money your going to waste and how they will be punished? You? By the way, did you know using state power to punish businesses costs tax payer money? I thought you were against that! Talk about inconsistent...

I am sorry that you so fundamentally misunderstand how the legal system works. Courts can - and do - force the losing side to pay the court's costs for bringing legal action. No tax payer funds are used. Of course, even if they didn't, why is it that YOU get to decide when businesses can and cannot use their right to legal recourse? Care to explain that one? Will you also be consistent and tell us that borrowers also lose the right to legal recourse since they took a part in the bank's stupid decision? No? Yet again, inconsistent...

You want to pretend that you can choose when and who gets legal recourse, a basic right to everyone (and businesses are made up of everyone). Go ahead, but don't expect any credibility.

You need to realize that protecting individual rights creates some very complicated rules of law. These are very broad concepts, and not easily defined. Yet you would tell us how they are defined and let us know when and whom gets to exercise their basic right to legal recourse. And what exactly are your credentials? When did you get appointed dictator?

As I have said previously, there should be no intervention by government on anyones behalf. The banks will succeed or fail on their own merits, and borrowers who take out loans they cannot afford should sink or swim on their own merits. Stupidity - on the part of businesses or individuals - does not strip them of their basic right to legal recourse.



[edit on 28-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
Yeah, the cancer of victimhood and not taking personal responsibility. I agree completely! One day people will stop blaming everyone else but themselves for their own problems.

But you will find no disagreement here. People can be stupid, and sign loans they do not understand. But that they do so does not mean its anyone's fault but their own.

While I won't argue with you that people tend to do stupid things then look for any excuse to pass the blame off, there is a deep level of marketing pressure and social conditioning that does help drive the problem.

People have told me I should take on a debt load... that it's good for building up credit. Others have been amazed when I've told them I don't have any interest in credit cards.

The masses have been conditioned to believe that they can have it all and have it now through the magic that is debt. Further, our society places a lot of focus on "stuff" as a means to evaluate a person's worth.

The engines that drive this crap are perty damned foul and you can't dismiss their part in the whole problem.

Think of it like drugs.
Credit-crack, if you would.
Now, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for crack-heads, but I'm certainly not going to condone crack dealers because it's their customer's choice to buy or not. Instead, I'd like to have most of them beaten to death with blunt objects, while their customers I'd like to see rehabilitated.

See where I'm going with this?

The victims have been stupid, but they could be "saved".
The dealers need to be dealt with.
Harshly.

Does any of that make any sense to anyone?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by BitRaiser
 


It is interesting that others have told you to take on debt to build credit, especially considering your and I agreement about stupid people. Because you don't have to take on one penny of debt or pay one penny of interest to build up your credit! More example of the stupidity of the masses...

I would agree that the masses have been conditioned with a "gotta have it now" mentality. But in my opinion, it is up to each individual to see beyond the marketing and realize that when you "gotta have it now" your "gonna pay way more than that sticker price" if you do it using a revolving credit balance.

I do not condone the practices of the banks, but I am not going to punish them either. They are free to do what they want in my opinion, as long as they don't coerce people (using the legal definition of coerce) into signing agreements. I also don't condone crack dealers, but I'm actually more than happy to legalize drugs - tis the Libertarian in me.

People should have the option to live beyond their means, if they choose to pay the price. They should have the option to "have it now," if they want to pay the price. The price is not worth it to me, but it seems to be worth it to lots of people. I would not take away peoples freedom of choice by "punishing" business.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Ah yes, I am just incapable of understanding the concept of what fairness means, which of course you can. Then again, maybe you are just going off the deep end because you have no legitimate, reasonable argument.

Legal definition of fairness

resources.lawinfo.com...

Justice
Fairness. A state of affairs in which conduct or action is both fair and right, given the circumstances. In law, it more specifically refers to the paramount obligation to ensure that all persons are treated fairly. Litigants "seek justice" by asking for compensation for wrongs committed against them; to right the inequity such that, with the compensation, a wrong has been righted and the balance of "good" or "virtue" over "wrong" or "evil" has been corrected.

Businesses can and do break the law, and when they do, the government has an obligation to take action and punish them accordingly. This is a well established fact. There are very valid reasons why we have business laws.

I decide nothing, I am only offering my opinion, backed by the facts. These are not decisions that I make, nor have I implied that I have a right to make these decisions. I only offer my opinion based on the reasons that I have explained. I have the right to hold my own opinions and participate in the political process by arguing my opinions, for whatever effect they may make.

It is my opinion that predatory lending practices create serious problems for our society, and government needs to be active in protecting individual from these predatory practices, in protecting the rights of individual trapped in these types of practices that should not be allowed. Our society pays for these abuses that are being allowed, and it needs to stop. The problem is electing representative in government who write laws that are fair and reasonable for all involved.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Ah yes, you are capable of telling us when we can and cannot punish companies, how to punish them, and who gets to be fair to whom. Then again, maybe you are just going off the deep end because you have no legitimate, reasonable argument.

You of course tried to spin since there is no legal definition of fairness (dun dun dun), it just is something that tends to be associated with the American concept of JUSTICE. As the definition says, it refers to PROCEDURAL JUSTICE.

I see you have now had to change your line of reasoning in light of everything I said being correct. Now you want to argue we punish businesses for breaking laws. This is a straw man argument and a fallacy. No one would disagree with this, and I never did. I said you cannot punish business because it violates your personal opinion of what is right and wrong. You know this, of course, but your grasping for straws at this point.

Offering loan products to people is not breaking the law. What law are they breaking? You want to punish businesses because they did something you did not agree with, not because they broke the law. If a business breaks a law in offering loan products, I am all for punishing them with whatever the law provides for. But you will find not law that says "The Banks shall not offer loan products to people with bad credit."

Your opinion doesn't say much since you want to persecute businesses on ambiguous concepts of fairness that you can't even define. Who will? You have a right to your opinion and you have a right to be wrong.
You shouldn't use such line of invalid reasoning (which you of course have now changed) if you don't want to be called out on it.

It is my opinion that businesses have a right to offer whatever loan products they want, and government needs to stay out unless a business does not abide by good faith contract law precedent. Individuals have a right to accept or decline any and all loan products. Individuals don't need government to protect them from agreements in which they knew all of the information and were not coerced into entering into the agreement. Our society will pay for the abuse of using government power to declare and dictate the business practices of private industry, and hopefully it will never happen. The problem is electing representatives in government who advocate for laws that try to run industries in which they have no business interfering.

[edit on 28-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Wow, I didn't know I was a dictator of business law. Now you have decided that you know more about my opinions than I do.

Laws are written on the concept of fairness, which is why there is so much reference to fairness acts. I provide a legal definition, and you still insist that there is none. You have really wondered off the map with this last post. I suggest you go back and read your earlier statements.

I don't think the government should prevent businesses from loaning money to high risk lenders, just that there needs to be some guidelines to prevent the types of predatory lending policies that seduce people into debt. Anyone who tosses away the large numbers of junk mail solicitations for credit knows how much effort lenders make to encourage people into going into debt. It only seems reasonable that if the government is going to enforce laws against debtors who default, then government should also write and enforce laws against lenders who encourage and seduce these people into debt beyond their means. Both sides are doing things that are wrong, and whether or not you are willing to admit the reality, or are capable of recognizing the reality, these predatory lending practices force all of us to pay for the bad behavior of these people, and I mean the lenders as well as the borrowers.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join