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: 13
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Maybe you should read your own posts. You crowned yourself the dictator of law and business, since you apparently get to decide that businesses get to be punished


Laws are not written on fairness, which is why THERE IS NO LEGAL DEFINITION - YOU GAVE THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF JUSTICE. What, did you not think I would not notice it? Procedural fairness - which is the concept of justice - does not mean fairness as you use the term. You continue to ignore the fact that the name of legislation is politicking and has no bearing on the contents of the legislation itself. I have mentioned all these things already, of course, and you conveniently ignore them. You have been wandering off the map since you started posting, read your last post.

Would you care to tell us exactly what IS predatory lending? Its a term people love to throw around, and yet no one can exactly define it. Credit offers, which I get all the time, do not tempt me to get into debt at all. Every now and then there is even a good offer that I apply for - and (GASP) I don't run up the card. Because you know, I actually read what I apply for.

You are (again) making an invalid comparison. The government does not automatically enforce any laws against people who go into debt. The law doesn't even get involved, unless something goes to court. This exists BOTH WAYS ALREADY - what do you not understand about this? No one is wrong, and whether or not you are willing to admit the reality, or are capable of recognizing the reality, lending practices by banks allow people to choose what sort of loans they sign up for. If they are coercive or are deceptive with the terms, they have legal recourse. And they use it.



apc

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   

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

Ah. So you are capable of comprehending the reality in which we live. A reality where the actions of your neighbor can and often do affect you? A reality where simply telling people "You're stupid. You shouldn't have done that." doesn't help anyone and only contributes to the problem and our eventual collapse?

Remember the cancer metaphor? You're a lymph node.
You should tear up your LP card or seriously reconsider what you think it stands for.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   

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.



A Credit card is NOT predatory lending. Everything in terms of fee's, fine's, interest, and terms are all FULLY disclosed to the borrower BEFORE the borrower signs the contract, you can refer to the cardmember agreement for ALL of the terms.

It's the SPENDING practices of consumers not the lending practices of banks that are effecting us, everyone wants to blame the big bad bank, when in reality people are in so much debt buying things they don't need that if they miss 1 day of work in a month they cant cover all of their bills. So they rob peter to pay paul, they start paying one credit card bill with another credit card. They start paying their mortgage with a credit card, they start paying auto loans, then they default and all of a sudden its the banks fault?

Owning a home and auto are privileges not RIGHTS. I agree with Lightindarkness. If you default on a credit card the bank should be able to come and take everything you bought and resell it to recoup as much of THEIR money as possible leaving you with the outstanding balance. Thats how it used to be in the UK back in the day. If you make mortgage payments with your credit card and default the bank should be able to come and take your home, same with your car.

And in regards to all of this costing consumers tax paying dollars, in all reality it doesnt cost all that much, most of the recovery process is handled by collection agencies and law offices hired by the banks privately, very few of the defaulted accounts make it to court.

[edit on 28-12-2007 by BluByWho]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by BluByWho
 


so now having a roof over your head to sleep is a privalge? What about the right to life...doesnt a home or domicile fall under that category?
Im assuming the reason credit card companies dont go after the goods you purchased because they cant actually prove that it was their money that was lent or that money was lent at all. This is mostly the reason why they lose interest and fees when you settle in court with them after a judgement has been place. This is also how organizations like FDRS illiminate credit card debt because all they do is request proof from the creditors that they actually had a DEBIT from their legitimate accounts that backedup my CREDIT. They have 18 months to provide proof and so far have never been able to. This group by the way has been incorrectly listed as a credi consolidation firm which is incorrect.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
LightinDarkness

So now I have crowned myself, and I am an agent of disinformation, so I guess that means you have nothing left. You prove this with your last post.

It is sad that you choose to pretend that their is no such concept of fairness in the law. As long as you can manipulate the law to your favor, you feel that you are right, no matter how unfair you are being to others.

What is predatory lending practices? I am not going to take the time to go through the whole con game that these supposedly legitimate banks pull on people, I'll just point out the first lie that they tell, and leave it at that.

They send you the solicitation, on the outside of the envelope, "PRE-APPROVED FOR 0% INTEREST RATE". But you are not pre-approved, in the fine print they tell you that this is subject to your credit rating. If you are pre-approved, that should mean that they have already decided that you meet their requirements for 0% interest, but you have not. That is the first lie in a long series of lies that they will tell, only to disavow in the fine print.

Most people get into these agreements thinking that they will be treated fairly, but these lenders do not even believe in the concept of fairness. The banks then play out this well developed con game, until the people who got suckered into this scheme realized that every step of the way they have been deceived. Then they get out of the system, usually at considerable cost, and never fall for the con game again. These companies thrive by praying on people who have yet to learn this harsh lesson. There is nothing legitimate about the corrupt business practices these banks embrace.

While you say you don't condone these corrupt business practice, in every post you support them and enable them in their crooked schemes. You want to put all the blame on the lenders for allowing themselves to be fooled by these can artist, but the truth is that these con artist should not be allowed to operate under the guise of legitimate business practices. You want to pretend that honest people can not be fooled by well developed schemes, and that is completely false. Deceptive business practices should not be allowed, and these con artists should be punished for pulling their cons. These crooks do not contribute to the market system, they prey upon it, and the good will of honest people.

Loan sharking, charging people unrealistic interest rates and penalties for small mistakes that do not match the punishments being passed down should not be acceptable by institutions that are given the privileges that banks are given through their charters. You support and condone a crooked system that honest people everywhere reject after having been exposed to such dishonesty.

The sad fact is that these credit card companies are morally bankrupt, and your choice to pretend that the concept of fairness has no meaning has made you morally bankrupt as well. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. These banks have decided that they can make a profit off of fooling enough people the first time. I say shame on these banks. It is time to make these crooks pay for their crooked ways.


apc

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I've got a great solution. A true Libertarian one too:

Deny banks the ability to use government to forcefully take personal property. That means the courts refuse to grant wage garnishment. Credit limits would drop overnight. Banks wouldn't dare extend credit to people whom they know can't pay it back because they would have no forceful recourse. Trash their credit rating until they can't buy so much as a toothbrush on credit. That's perfectly fine. End the use of force to take property.

If banks are stupid enough to get someone else stupid enough to sign for such a stupid debt, everyone should pay for their own respective stupidity. And we as a people should educate eachother and help eachother recover from our mistakes, not badger and call people names. When we do that, the only people we harm is ourselves.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Truth of the matter, is that credit card agreements are not valid contracts. When you apply for a card you do not get the terms until the card comes. So basiclaly you sign before knowing the terms. There is also no place on credit card agreements for the lending party to sign. Without 2 signatures that agreement is not a binding contract. Same thing with mortgages.

There is also the question of consideration. Credit card companies and mortgage sellers have given no real consideration, just an elctronic journal entry. This does not qualify as legal consideration. Only monies lent from there assets on deposit qualify as legal consideration.

What it comes down to is that in a few years all debts will be forgiven. Banks will be recapitlized and no longer will be able to lend out more than their deposits on hand.

As crazy as it sounds it will become painfully obvious in the coming years that this is the only real solution. Step one will be buying back the Federal Reserve, abolishing it and forgiving all debts owed to it. Step two will be cancelling all invalid (see above) credit card and mortgage debt. Step three will be to recapitilize the banks and make whole the American debt investor. Step four will be to screw the rest of the world who lent us money. Sorry folks. Step Five - World War 3, as the rest of the world wants there money back. Step 6 Utopia

[edit on 28-12-2007 by disgustedbyhumanity]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


You continue to fail at this. Ah, so you are NOT capable of separating reality from the world as you would like it to be? For all of your political views, you know the government is doing exactly what you'd like them to be doing? I'm pretty sure that's a form of mental illness, if you are unable to make a distinction between normative and positive perceptions.

I am not stupid enough to think that the government actually operates according to how I'd like to to operate. If you do, you enjoy that delusion.

Remember the cancer metaphor? You're the tumor. You should learn what political parties stand for before commenting on other peoples politics.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Yes I know you'd like it if I had "nothing left" - unfortunately for you, thats just another one of your misinformation attempts.

It is sad that you choose to pretend that there is a concept of fairness in the law. As long as you can continue to manipulate the law to your own political ideology, you feel that you are right, no matter how many other people you have to punish.

If you would actually read what the banks send you, you would understand such simple things like pre-approval. Your ignorance does not equal predatory lending. Pre-approval means that in a massive look at people with very general credit criteria, your name came up. They did not do a hard pull on your credit profile, so while it looks as though you could qualify, you may not. Your credit situation could change between the time they do a massive soft pull and qualify.

You'd understand this, if you would read the things they send you. Again, I must remind you that reading is fundamental.

--
If people are stupid enough to think that banks are a charity and will have mercy on them when they do not abide by the terms of the contract they entered, then they get what they deserve. No one has been deceived, people have not been reading. There is nothing legitimate about stupid consumers who cannot read they agreements they enter.

Your desire to be right and punish everyone is not my fault. If you cannot separate the fact that there is a difference in supporting an action and allowing it to happen, I cannot help you. You support your crazy socialist schemes to punish people on criteria you can't even define. You want to put all the blame on the loan holders for being "tricked" by the "evil" banks, but the truth is a bank is a business and you can choose not to get any loan product you want. You want to pretend that smart people are unable of reading and understanding loan agreements and thus are preyed upon by the big "evil" banks, and that is completely false. Stupid consumerism should be allowed, and stupid consumers should be punished for their stupidity. Stupid consumers do not contribute to the market system, their actions prey on the rest of us who pay our bills, the good will of honest people.

You can try all day to make companies big bad and evil, I won't try to separate you from your delusion. Here's the thing - I don't care. They can be evil, big, and bad all they want. Its a free market, as long as they are within the limit of the law I don't care what they do. I won't be falling for them anytime soon - but you know, I actually read what I sign.

It must be nice to live in a world where you can so easily make everything so black and white, and divine for us who is evil and should be punished and who is the victim. I do not claim to have such power. You continue to support and condone stupid consumerism and want to punish free market.

The sad fact is that these credit card companies are businesses, and your choice to be the great diviner of who is good and evil has made you morally bankrupt. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on you. These consumers have decided that they can take loans from banks and not pay them back and force responsible people to pay for their loans. I say shame on the consumers. It is time to make them pay for their crooked ways.
--

You see? I can take your self-righteous and blinded morality and apply it to the other side too. Of course I don't really believe that, I think each side should be left to their own devices. I have already stated this numerous times. But in your attempt to try to make everyone out who disagrees with you to be EVVVILLL, you have forgotten - once again - to actually read anything.But you, in your indignant and zealous attempt to think your moral, have shown who you truly are. You are incapable of actually doing anything but executing your self-righteous political doctrine. I have no hope for you.

It's easy to blame the big faceless corporation, it makes people feel good and righteous. You get to "stick it to the MAN!" Unfortunately for you, reality often intercedes. Thing's aren't so black and white, no matter how desperately you want them to be in order to define and verify your narrow and isolated worldview.

[edit on 28-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 


I would be fine with stopping all business from taking my personal property. Not to mention currently most states already prohibit wage garnishment by unsecured creditors. Of course I still hold that property that you bought on any form of credit is not yours. If they want to come take it, they should - if its something that isn't temporary in nature.

Of course the problem is that under this situation the stupid people who signed up for things they cannot afford aren't really having to pay for their decision. The only way to fix it would be to make bad credit marks follow people around for life - instead of the 7-10 years it currently is. Otherwise, they could charge it all up and do whatever they want every 10 years and never have to pay for their actions. I'm fine with it happening once - their credit should be stained after that forever unless it was ID theft or something.

I agree that it is becoming pointless to waste time insulting each other in here. We can agree to disagree.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by disgustedbyhumanity
Truth of the matter, is that credit card agreements are not valid contracts. When you apply for a card you do not get the terms until the card comes. So basiclaly you sign before knowing the terms. There is also no place on credit card agreements for the lending party to sign. Without 2 signatures that agreement is not a binding contract. Same thing with mortgages.

There is also the question of consideration. Credit card companies and mortgage sellers have given no real consideration, just an elctronic journal entry. This does not qualify as legal consideration. Only monies lent from there assets on deposit qualify as legal consideration.





[edit on 28-12-2007 by disgustedbyhumanity]


HERE

They don't give you the terms until the card shows up? I'm pretty sure I see the link for terms and pricing at the very top of that application page. The bank is the one making the offer, you the consumer choose wether or not to ACCEPT that offer. The consideration is your credit line.

[edit on 28-12-2007 by BluByWho]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GUICE2
reply to post by BluByWho
 


so now having a roof over your head to sleep is a privalge? What about the right to life...doesnt a home or domicile fall under that category?
Im assuming the reason credit card companies dont go after the goods you purchased because they cant actually prove that it was their money that was lent or that money was lent at all. This is mostly the reason why they lose interest and fees when you settle in court with them after a judgement has been place. This is also how organizations like FDRS illiminate credit card debt because all they do is request proof from the creditors that they actually had a DEBIT from their legitimate accounts that backedup my CREDIT. They have 18 months to provide proof and so far have never been able to. This group by the way has been incorrectly listed as a credi consolidation firm which is incorrect.


Is that what I said? No, I said OWNING a home is a privilege not a right.

The reason the bank doesnt come to your house to take your goods is because a credit card is Unsecured, thats why the interest rates are higher, because the debt isn't backed by anything but your creditworthiness.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   
APC

I agree, credit card companies that want to operate with no government interference should also have to collect debts without government interference, that would be a just and fair system, but these banks want government to serve their needs, while ignoring the needs of honest people to not be cheated by the fine print in a multi-layered con game.

LightinDarkness

You are the one who does not understand. I read these credit card offers, and see them for the crooked con games that they are. You want to pretend that there is no such thing as right and wrong, fair or unfair, you choose to live in the darkness with only as much light as you can stand, to see the world only as much as you choose to see. You want to pretend that words have no meaning, and that the double speak in the fine print is a legitimate way of doing business. You are wrong, and you have been proven wrong. The only thing you have left is obfuscation.

disgustedbyhumanity

Sadly, we will only go through another cycle in this type of credit induced economic expansion. The agents of deception will be exposed for another period, only to return with new schemes. The battle for good against evil will continue.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


You do not understand. It is not up to you to be the punisher of businesses because you do not like them. Are you also going to be punishing McDonalds? The difference between you and I is that I believe in people. I believe people can be intelligent enough and savvy enough to do what is in their own best interest. You do not. You want to "protect" them by denying them of their innate right to freedom of choice, because you think they are stupid children who can't make any of their own decisions.

Now, back to copying your own twisted sense of righteous and indignant morality:

You want to pretend that businesses are evil, that you alone can determine what is right and wrong, fair and unfair, you choose to live in the darkness and only see as much light as you can stand, to see the world only as much as you choose to see. You want to pretend you can tell us what the true meaning of words is in spite of all evidence to the contrary, and that all credit is evil and you get to decide what is legitimate.

Back to reality:

You are wrong, and you have been proven wrong. The only thing you have left is obfuscation. O' how the mighty have fallen, you prideful zealot.

By the way, I am open to you and I stopping this insult game. But since you started it and you so accurately have been describing yourself, I've just been turning everything you say against you. It is rather boring though - so, any time you want to stop...you let me know...



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by BluByWho
 


I again admire you for even trying. You are right, of course, but given some of the people here, it's great that you are even trying to spread the truth. Remember though, you are talking to someone who has just signed up for a 100% scam agency that has an F for a BBB rating and has complaints all over the internet. I wish he would do a background look on these agencies first...

[edit on 28-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Lightinthedarkness

Reality, not all businesses are bad, or deserve punishment, and I never claimed that they were. Some businesses are bad and should to be held responsible to minimize the damage that they cause. These are perfectly reasonable understandings of the world and how it is.

Most businesses and people are decent and honest, and conduct themselves with due propriety. There is a reason for the existence of government and laws, to establish law and order so that we may function better as a society. Calling for the punishment of businesses that fail to operate in an honest manner is completely legitimate. I have based my opinion on reason and logic, and offered examples and proof for the reason behind my beliefs, while you have concentrated on obfuscation and claimed superior knowledge, without having demonstrated such.

The con game that credit card companies practice, making grand offers up front while denying any realistic attempt to honor those promises in the fine print is simply wrong. By doing so, these banks profit from fooling the young and the desperate into making deals that they would not normally make. I see no reason to reward such deceptive practices with the force of government, and advocate change for this corrupt credit card system. I have posted my reasons, if you have any logical argument to dispute these reasons, please make them, as you have yet to do so.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
reply to post by BluByWho
 


I again admire you for even trying. You are right, of course, but given some of the people here, it's great that you are even trying to spread the truth. Remember though, you are talking to someone who has just signed up for a 100% scam agency that has an F for a BBB rating and has complaints all over the internet. However, because he's been so deluded by this conspiracy theory that they spun for him, he thinks they are legitimate. He could have went with a legitimate and non-profit agency that wouldn't steal his money and actually accomplish something, but he bought the scam completely. He didn't even bother to do his own homework on the agency, he just thought "OMG THEY ARE TELLING ME THE CREDIT CARD COMPANIES ARE BIG BAD AND EVIL THEY MUST BE THE GOOD GUYS." Sad times...


In terms of the laws and the courts and the political science you definitely have more knowledge than I, what you added to the thread has helped me learn more which is always a good thing. The problem with this thread is everyone thinks the bank is there to serve their needs, the bank is there to make money, which is a concept I believe only you and I are understanding.

My viewpoint when it comes to this is a bit cynical from time to time because I am a bill collector so I deal with the worst of the worst on a daily basis. I tried to remain as neutral as possible in this thread but certain individuals just don't want to listen.

Hopefully anyone else reading this thread who might be in credit trouble has learned something.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
GUICE2: I am simply reporting the truth. You should do background checks on companies before you do business with them. You COULD have gotten a non-scam agency to deal with you for free, and gotten results. Instead you are paying someone cash for a service you could do for free who has complaints all over the web and a BBB F rating - care to explain those? As I said, what happened is you bought into the conspiracy theory like they wanted you to. You fell for the scam, and calling me names does not change that.

poet1b:

I agree that some businesses are "bad." To me, a bad business that deserves to be punished is someone who does not operate within the law. There are other bad businesses that are perfectly legal, and I do not think they should be punished. I will simply not do business with them - and if enough people don't the market will take over and they won't be in business anymore.

You want to punish business based on your perceptions of what is honest, which is not legitimate. You have based your opinion on ideology and have not offered any valid examples or proof for your points, while I have concentrated on reality and offered evidence to the contrary.

Credit card companies make offers you choose to accept or ignore. It is a business. People accept the offers, the banks make money. The banks make money anytime someone uses a card, even when they don't carry a balance. There is nothing wrong with being a business, even if your ideology refuses to accept that. No ones business practices are rewarded with the force of government, as I already posted government does not interfere actively on anyones behalf. I have used logical arguments to dispute everything you've said, that you refuse to see them is not my problem.

I still await for you to tell us who deserves punishment and what your criteria is for punishment, since that wastes tax payer dollars which you were so consistently against.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
The con game that credit card companies practice, making grand offers up front while denying any realistic attempt to honor those promises in the fine print is simply wrong. By doing so, these banks profit from fooling the young and the desperate into making deals that they would not normally make.


I posit that the size of the font used to print a legal document is not an issue. Yes, it's part of the marketing but also a realization that if they used the full size font, the document would look more like a brochure than a single page, and people would be scared off by the legal complexity.

I think if somebody's not giving themselves trouble of reading the terms in conditions whatever font these might be printed in, is not doing his/her homework. Situation is not different from buying any other complex product. Sure they'll advertise that this particular car model is great, but unless you do comparative shopping and research, you'll have to blame the consequences on yourself.

What does being "desperate" have to do with the ability to understand whether you can afford extra debt?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join