Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by PsychDoc, Oct 23, 2001.

  1. PsychDoc

    PsychDoc Well-Known Member

    In a different thread here, a few of us have been discussing to what degree consumers should or should not be held accountable for their poor credit histories. (That thread is titled "I think I have a GREAT idea!" -- so it would make sense to move the discussion to a thread with a more accurate label.)

    I'd like to throw out a few questions for discussion. It will be interesting to see how different CreditNet members feel regarding these issues.

    1) If there was a move to eliminate credit reporting agencies altogether (not realistic, but this is a hypothetical question), would you support that effort? If yes, why do you think credit bureaus should be illegal? If no, why not?

    2) Would you be happy if credit cards were handed out generously and without any check of ones credit history?

    3) Should consumers who are experiencing family difficulties or emergencies still have to pay their credit card bills? What about the mortgage? How about auto loans?

    Three's enough to start. (Three's company? Oof.)

  2. leo728

    leo728 Well-Known Member

    Of course everyone is supposed to be held accountable for their actions.

    And no , credit should not be handed out to easy. And no credit reporting should not be scrapped.

    But thats just me. I thought about it long and deep, and these are the conclusions I made. I don't feel like trying to explain how I came to the conclusion because I don't think I can even try to express it.

    But the thought process kind off in this direction.

    The system is flawed, Honest people are getting short changed. But without a system there would be choas. Something along the way.
  3. supershawn

    supershawn Well-Known Member

    (Doc's just jealous because my thread is bigger than his......<snicker>)

    Doc, I just posted in MY thread, but since you have all but killed it now I will donate it here... LOL!

    The included post will somewhat tangent what you asked here, but also give a little background on where your questions came from. Anyway, it will help some people see the reasononing from 'the other side'.

    This thread will be great to discuss as you opened up a viewpoint for me today that I had not really thought of.

    When I first started thinking that I might have to file BK, I really tried my best to make 'deals' with my debtors to reach a 'middle-point', one that I could afford to pay off and one they could afford to take.

    A few were able to work something out. And becasue of that, they got paid.

    However, a few took another approach. It was all or nothing. No matter how I hard I tried, they just got worse. It isn't long after being called names, being called 30 times a day, etc, that the 'creditor' is no longer someone who loaned you money, they are 'the bad guy'. They are not a person, or a group of people, or a business, they are just 'evil'. You grow to hate them.

    I think it is at that point that you no longer care- or even realize for that matter- that you have 'stuff' that you 'bought' but wasn't 'paid for'. Maybe you even do realize this but you want to hurt them as they have been hurting you. You may even be able to rationalize that all the fees you paid, the interest, etc, more than makes up for what you 'bought'.

    Anyway, here's my post from the other thread. I hope this will give you some background on Doc's new thread. This should be good. (even if he does have an alterior motive---longest thread in his next round of statistics...hee hee)

    <podium on>

    Even though I started the thread under the assumption that FICO can be unfair, among other things......., I don't think it is correct to say that Fico and Risk are not related.

    Fico and Risk are related, however, the scoring model does have a lot of what I would consider 'flaws'. The major one being virtually NO difference in a paid or un-paid chargeoff.

    I also think that lenders are not doing anyone justice by simply following 'any' automatic scoring model. Any lender worth applying for should take an application into consideration and review it thoroughly, not just 'cherry pick' those that have a certain 'score'.

    An example...and I'll use the charg-off situation again here as I am in a hurry....suppose you have two applicants with almost identical credit histories and scores.

    Applicant A has 2 charge-offs from a car accident, insurance (sorry Breeze) or medical related. Applicant A let these accounts go and said 'FU' to the debts.

    Applicant B also has 2 charge-offs from an auto accident. He was out of work for three months so he couldn't pay the bills right away, but he paid them as soon as he could. Unfortunately, the creditor turned him over to collection (go figure) and he still has 'paid' charge-offs on his credit report.

    Who would you rather loan money too? The guy that paid as soon as he could, though late, or the guy that said 'who cares, gonna be the same score either way'.

    I think this is a serious flaw in the system.

    I also believe that penalizing (*certain) debtors for the whole 7 or 10 years is not fair, especially when there are other people in society, like criminals (although I can see how some people don't like this analogy), who commit far worse actions and do not pay the entire penalty for their 'crimes'.

    Why should 'restitution', be it money or time, come easier for criminals than debtors?

    I agree that there has to be some type of 'scoring mechanism', however, I don't think the fully automated 'fico' type system is the answer. I strongly believe that it's wrongs are outdoing it's right's.

    When I started this thread I spoke of an idea of a 'credit amnesty'. This was an idea I had that would work on many levels.....

    There are a lot of good people out there -and this board is proof- that bad things happen to good people. And maybe those people didn't make the best decisions at one time....And maybe those people did not have a proper savings cushion to fall back on...BUT, they are good people and they learned a valuable lesson.

    These people good do society and the economy a lot of good by being given a little 'pardon'.....it happens to tax cheats every year.

    Now, if someone was very irresponsible and ran up a bunch of cards then delcared BK and walked away, should they be considered? I don't think so, not right away, anyway.

    But for those who truly were involved ina situation out of their control, there should be some type of restitution besides waiting 10 years (or 7).

    And it does NOT have to be a 'free-bee'.

    How about a class? A set of classes? That require a tuition to be paid- it could go to a fund repaying back participating debtors who are involved in the program. A person could 'apply' as they would to go to college or night school. A counselor could review their application...review their credit report...go over the past and the mistakes with the debtor. The counselor could learn the truth behind 1(30, 2(60), etc....they are not just nmbers, they are a divorce, a car accident, a broken leg, etc.

    The counselor could then approve or deny the application (don't even ask if you can 'dispute' it...). An approval would mean you are set up on a 'payment' plan to finance the cost of the courses...the money going to the fund. The payment plan would be just one of the 'tests' you are faced with on the road to recovery.

    You would then take courses where attendance was mandatory, be judged on participation and how much you have learned. Learn the values of your money, the true cost of buying something on credit, keeping a good budget, etc.

    This could go on for a little while just like an 'associates' or 'certificate' program.

    And then, at the, end, if you have completed and passed all the objectives, you could receive a new, clean, credit report.

    It could even be a totally separate report from your original. It could be a report that only the participating creditors recognize. BUT, it would give you a chance to pay your 'restitution' for your mistakes and go on with yor life.

    Now I think that's a 'great' idea....even if I say so myself.


    p.s. Think of how this could benefit the economy....

    <podium off>
  4. PsychDoc

    PsychDoc Well-Known Member

    Re: Discussion: BEING HELD ACCOUNTA

    Shawn, it's ok with me if pbm edits out my nickname and inserts yours, LOL. Seriously, it's not about the size of your thread, it's how you use it. :)

    If you'll let me play moderator for a minute, I'd like to compliment Shawn on his description of how someone can grow to hate a creditor and, through that process, begin to forget that they took "stuff" from the store without ultimately paying for it. Psychologists would call his description a "phenomenological account" of the experience (you may know that already -- in that case, sorry for the "lesson"). Shawn, I just greatly enjoyed reading those paragraphs because I think you captured and explained the experience in a way that a standard narrative-less explanation might not.

    So, without yet treading into the "credit amnesty" idea Shawn touts in his other thread (wow, Shawn, that's a HUGE thread, man!), I'd like to explore in this thread just the little part about personal responsibility and how much (or not) we should be willing to take when it comes to credit matters.

    I was actually surprised that anybody answered, LOL. These questions cut to the heart of what we're doing here, and these questions are threatening for that reason. I myself have disputed (with success) serious late-pay notations that were accurate in an effort to have those removed. In most respects that's no better than Lizardking's false claim of identity theft when successfully removing unpaid chargeoffs. Both of us are dodging some responsibility for our actions, so I'm not climbing up on a high horse and pretending to speak apart from and down to the flock here. I'm one of you, for goodness sakes. I'm just wrestling with the right and wrong of it all.

    Leo, thanks for your concise answers. I agree with you that we should bear some responsibility, that there should be a record someplace, and that credit shouldn't be handed out blindly. However, therein lies my conflict. I believe that people should take responsibility for their actions, and at the same time I (and others) am actively working to undo some of that same responsibility. Can the conflict be successfully bridged within the confines of an ethical life? Should I teach my kids to do as I have done, for example?

    Anybody else have any thoughts on these matters?

  5. jsever

    jsever Well-Known Member

    Re: Discussion: BEING HELD ACCOUNTA

    Credit reporting agencies are necessary. What we have isn't perfect and needs improvement.

    If cards were handed out generously and without check, either no one would have a credit card or everyone would. We know where that would go.

    Common sense and a reasonable payback schedule would probably work for #3.

    I'm replying to your post because I've recently obtained a lot of credit and now I'm wondering what I'm going to do with it.

    I've cleaned up my credit reports to a degree; some items were mine, some were not. I guess my situation was not as bad as I originally thought. My main problem was that I never had much credit. I was raised that way.

    After following this board for some time, I've obtained more credit than I probably need. If I were to max out everything, my income would not be sufficient to pay back. At this stage of the game that will never happen. I'm not going to use anymore than I can pay back. The info and experiences shared on this board have made the difference in my situation

    After these considerations, yes we are and should be accountable when we know what we are getting into. All I can say is stay informed and this is a good place for that.
  6. breeze

    breeze Well-Known Member

    Yes and no. If they dismantled the current system to institute a good one, I am for that. I do see the need for a credit reporting system. My thinking is that it should be a not-for-profit organization, and should not be allowed to sell our information. It should be an open system. In addition, the selling and reselling of charged off and stale debts should be completely stopped.

    nope. none of us could afford that.

    That's what bankruptcy is for. However, I think credit card companies should be required, upon proof of certain circumstances, to convert the account to an installment account at a fixed interest and payment, if the consumer prefers not to file bk.

    And let me add: Good faith is a necessary component of our entire financial system. Somehow it has gone by the boards, and some other kind of standard has taken over. Shrewdness is valued more than integrity - not just consumers, the CCC's the CRA's, collections, insurance companies - across the board.

    The company or individual who operates with integrity and good faith will be eaten alive by the competition/ profit motive/need to win/whatever.

    It is a "house of cards."

    However, things are the way they are, and my belief is that I am only responsible for what I do - but I am definitely responsible for that.
  7. matty61184

    matty61184 Well-Known Member

    In response to your questions:

    1.) No, I don't think that the credit bureaus should be eliminated. What should be done is a revamping of how they treat consumers and handle disputes. Processes should be easier, results faster, and less hassle bottom line.

    2.) I think it is necessary to check the credit history of an individual to issue credit, because it represents how they handle thir credit. IF you handed out cards like candy, the delinquency rates would be outrageous, and it would ultimately lead to higher interest rates/annual fees, and who knows what else. It wouldn't make sense to hand credit out to anyone who requests it.

    3.) This one is a hard question. How could you valify is they have a family emergency or difficulty? People would take this option to their advantage far too often. If they want the protection, they can elect to have that credit card insurance on the account, or some coverage for the mortgage and auto loans.
  8. dave

    dave Well-Known Member

    I am for consumer accountability. Of course, we need credit bureaus and credit should not be given to irresponsible people. Credit scoring does weed out alot of these people but it is a far from perfect system because it is not sufficiently nuanced to distinguish circumstances that point to greater risk and others that don't. The best example of this is when a credit report reflects a paid judgment. This is a derogatory that always dings a credit score but a judgment, if paid, does not necessarily increase the risk to a prospective lender. It could be that the debtor who lost the suit was not even sued on a debt but for some other reason unrelated to creditworthiness or the case may have involved a close question of liability that made it worth fighting. The debtor who lost the case may have paid the judgment right away but his credit score plummets.

    Another area has to do with inquiries. Why should a credit score take a hit because someone applies for cell phone service or utilities? Is a person a greater risk when applying for a credit card because he decided to have a phone? Sometimes credit reports contain chickenshit items like unpaid library fines or parking tickets that are sent to collection. These are treated the same as defaulting on a credit card or student loan. There are some ways that the system needs to be cleaned up so that the scoring models reflect what really does constitute risk.

    I am for holding the credit card companies responsible too. Some of them are outright criminal operations that should be shut down. Others engage in highly suspect behavior by delaying posting of payments to extract late fees and jack APRs. People who qualify only for subprime credit and may be low income are particularly vulnerable to these abuses. It's about time the government intervened to stop this crap. The problem is that these companies have alot of money so they are able to buy politicians-- actually they rent them--to eliminate regulation of rates and fees. I would like to see that changed.
  9. Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Hi All!

    I'm going to plagiarize myself from another thread a couple of months ago:

    Couldn't have said it better myself. Oh, wait. Uh.. nevermind.
  10. Hal

    Hal Well-Known Member

    I am also for consumer accountability. I believe that accountability should be required from other areas as well.

    Creditors should be accountable for poor business practices internally. Processing payments after due dates that were received well in advance - to gain late and overlimit fees (which accounts for a huge portion of their profit margin). Payments are generally processed in automated equipment and should you staple your check to your payment voucher it is often set aside for later processing as a policy - for anyone who has experienced a creditor losing a payment - common sense would lead them to consider stapling the check to the voucher. There have been many attempts at legislation to require a creditor to credit a payment as of the date of the postmark - to prevent assessment of late fees - needless to say the huge creditor lobby has gone quickly into motion each time to ensure defeat of any statute requiring this.

    Creditors should also be held accountable for "targeting" schemes in which low income, often near poverty level individuals and families are targeted for high interest, low limit cards loaded with fees and charges. These individuals and families often barely meet their day to day expenses and when mailed a "preapproved" offer by companies sucha s Crooks Country Bank - they quickly respond - only to end up defaulting in the end- these creditors expect only a few payments and the occasional late fee - knowing the $400.00 limit account will default - often allowing it to reach $800.00 or so and then selling the account at a discounted rate to a collector.

    Creditors should be REQUIRED to write any agreement in layman's terms so that even someone with questionable education can understand it - make it simple (i.e. YOUR INTEREST RATE IS 25% - not Your interest rate will be calculated on a daily basis and may be adjusted based on the prime rate plus 5% ...). I think the KISS principle should prevail in explaining credit card terms.

    Credit Reporting Agencies should be held accountable for blatant errors and mistakes - the burden of proof should lie upon THEM as they compile the reports, they make the money of the creditors subscribing! For a credit reporting agency to profit from reporting blatantly incorrect information is ludicrous. We don't allow merchants to profit from "bait and switch" advertising; should the media report something incorrectly about an individual - they can be held liable for slander etc. CRA's should not be allowed to report information "willy nilly" and make a profit from the reporting - not without requiring some evidence of its validity from the creditor reporting it ! It is no worse to besmirch the credit reputation of an individual than it is to slander him/her publicly.
  11. KHM

    KHM Well-Known Member

    1. Don't eliminate them, but who came up with this 7 year rule? Does it take everone 7 years to figure out they made a mistake?

    2. I think that if someone wants to put info on my credit report they should send an updated copy to me without me asking. It might help with all the fraud, then give us 30 days to dispute it like with the CA's. If they can't prove it's your acct. then they can't put it on our report. Saves us from running back and forth between the CRA's and the creditors.

    3. No of course you can't just hand them out.
    4. How about this Family emergency, you get 1 months no paying but interest still adds up. PERSONAL emergency, 3 months. (just ballpark)
  12. PsychDoc

    PsychDoc Well-Known Member

    Re: Discussion: BEING HELD ACCOUNTA

    I was surprised to see that almost everyone agrees that CRAs should exist in some form and that credit should not be handed out indiscriminately (necessitating an application and approval process). Clearly the concensus is that, despite our faults, we should be responsible for our mistakes. What's even more gratifying though are the great number of proactive suggestions that have been offered.

    There have been SO MANY TREMENDOUS IDEAS generated here that we may have the makings of a consumer credit movement afoot. I've attempted to catalog the ones brought up so far; following each suggestion, I've credited the author in parenthesis. Here are the ones brought up so far (but everyone should feel free to contribute more concrete suggestions -- even you lurkers for a change, lol):

    1) Chargeoffs. Don't treat paid chargeoffs and unpaid chargeoffs with comparably negative weight. (supershawn, dave)
    2) Non-profit CRAs. Credit reporting agencies should be replaced with a regulated not-for-profit agency which is not allowed to sell consumer information -- i.e., an open system. (breeze)
    3) Reselling debts. The selling and reselling of charged off and stale debts should be eliminated. (breeze)
    4) Hardship. Upon proof of hardship, creditors should be required to convert revolving accounts to installment accounts with fixed APRs and payments if the consumer does not file bankruptcy. (breeze)
    5) Disputes. CRA disputes should produce results faster with with less hassle. (matty61184)
    6) Inquiries. Inquiries not directly related to credit (examples: cellular service, utilities, insurance) should not count against a person's credit risk score. (dave)
    7) Judgments. Don't treat quickly-paid judgments the same as reluctantly-paid or unpaid judgments. (dave)
    8) Non-credit notations. Unpaid library fines, traffic fines, and other non-credit derogatory notations should not be included, or be far less consequential, in credit scoring. (dave)
    9) Payment posting. Government attention should turn to credit card companies who allegedly delay posting of payments in an apparent effort to extract additional fees; payments should be credited according to their postal postmark dates. (dave, Hal)
    10) Marketing. Creditors should not target their marketing to low-income individuals and families. (Hal)
    11) Agreements. Creditor terms of service and legal agreements should be written in easily-understandable layman's terms. (Hal)
    12) CRA errors. CRAs should be held more closely accountable for reporting obvious errors. (Hal)
    13) Automatic reporting. In an effort to proactively combat fraud at its origin, credit file changes should automatically be reported to consumers, according to some organized schedule, without their having to ask. (KHM)
    14) Emergencies. Some process for declaring a family financial emergency short of bankruptcy should be in place so that payments can be delayed for 1 to 3 months even though interest would still accrue. (KHM)

    Three personal observations:

    1) What to do with credit cards? jsever brought up an interesting issue: "I've recently obtained a lot of credit and now I'm wondering what I'm going to do with it. After following this board for some time, I've obtained more credit than I probably need." We often hear individuals justify their lofty credit lines by saying that they're there just in case of an emergency. (To clarify, that's NOT what jsever said his was for.) Frankly, the only thing that would make an emergency worse is having to deal with untenable debt the following month. That's why health insurance, home insurance, and auto insurance -- not to mention saving an emergency fund -- are outright necessities. It's my opinion that too many people believe that their credit cards ARE their emergency fund. The problem with that thinking is that it really shields the fact that it's not a personal fund at all -- it's borrowing from someone else's fund. The other mistake we sometimes make with credit cards is that we mistakenly treat a $4,000 credit line, for example, as $4,000 sitting there that's ready to blow however we like! I forgot who it was (and we'll leave it that way) who posted that they just received their Target card so they're off to Target on Saturday to buy, buy, buy. This person clearly forgot that their income will be the same next Saturday as it was last Saturday; the only difference is that next Saturday they'll be using somebody else's money to take home some merchandise that won't be fully paid for until they have a zero balance again, often months down the road after paying exhorbitant interest penalties for the privilege.

    2) Is it ethical to clean your credit? Quixote gave an intelligent, elegantly-organized rationalization for why it's ok for the select few of us to "clean" our credit -- so long as everybody else doesn't do it. Very, very smartly put together. Quixote, have you ever considered becoming a defense attorney? You'd probably rise to the top of your field.

    3) How long should notations remain in credit files? KHM raises the question of the 7 year rule. Frankly, 7 sounds a whole lot better than 10 or 12 to me (what creditors would prefer) and is a serious hedge against the problem of deadbeat repeaters. If 7 years is too long (or not long enough), what period would you advocate?

  13. Erica

    Erica Well-Known Member

    I think that there should be a credit repository, but 1, not 3. I also think that the consumer should not perform the quality control. I think that there should be stricter laws to enforce the CRA, and punitive damages.

    I think that is a silly question. Credit scores are dumb. I am nowhere as irresponsible as my credit score shows me as. The whole 7 year rule is ridiculous. I think that there should be a smaller scale of indebtedness. I mean, shorter sentencing. Most murderers are out in 2 to 3 years with probation.

    I think that there should be some leniency for emergencies, such as family illnesses and layoffs. I mean, who wakes up one morning and says to themselves "Gee, I think I want to spend thousands of dollars on a Cancer treatment, so I think I wanna get Cancer." or "I really don't wanna work anymore, I think I'll get laid-off today." Most of these emergencies are just that....emergencies. This is a two income world now. If one person loses their job or becomes ill, it is only a matter of time until the extra money runs out.

    I'm not sure if I answered all of the questions, but that's my opinion.
  14. KHM

    KHM Well-Known Member

    Re: Discussion: BEING HELD ACCOUNTA

    I definately think 7 years is much better than 10 or 12. I honestly think each item should vary. If it is an unpaid charge-off then 7 is the maximum, however if it is paid, *I* think it should stay on for MAYBE 1 year after it was paid. Maybe that way creditors would be more likely to get paid for chargeoffs and the consumers would only have to look at that negative for one year after being paid. Paid or unpaid it has the same negative affect. Makes *ME* not want to pay them.

    Late pays, 30,60,90 days should only be on for 1 year, TOPS! People make mistakes.
    Bankruptcies, 10 years is far to long. Maybe this should be the 7 year one? ANy suggestions?
    NOTHING should be able to be sold from one compnay to the next to the next, ect. If YOU were willing to give that person credit then YOU have to be willing to chase after them if they don't pay. (you being the creditors).
    I just don't think these things should be haunting us for as long as they are. I know my 'less amount of time on the CR' will never work. It would make more work for the CRA's, and we all know they can't even handle the work they have to do now.
  15. KristyW

    KristyW Well-Known Member

    Re: Discussion: BEING HELD ACCOUNTA

    I agree whole heartedly that there should only be one credit reporting agency. However, since these are profit businesses (the CRAs), then we might get into the monopoloy issue. All of the companies were started for profit and marketed to various companies as the "de facto" credit standard, and they did such a good job of salesmanship that we are stuck with 3. Of course, since they are doing such a bad job (or maybe it's just really tough to keep track of 150+ million credit files, or they just haven't entered the information age), this is creating headaches/tragedies/infringement of rights for consumers. The law is always so damn slow to respond to this. We as consumers, even though this mess is not our fault, need to take a role in getting the right laws passed.

    Bankruptcies are necessary - everyone deserves a chance to recover from financial tragedies. However, I do agree that some people have taken shameless advantage of the law. There are so many people who go into bankruptcy, foolishly, I might add, for under $10,000. I think that is either laziness, ignorance or stupidity. As regard to the new proposed laws for BK, at least now they have been put on hold since Sept 11. I don't agree with all of them.
  16. marci

    marci Well-Known Member

    Re: Discussion: BEING HELD ACCOUNTA


    Those were some truly great insights in your last post. I'm printing it out for my personal use wrt staying on track to get out of debt and managing credit responsibly.

    Thanks a lot,
  17. PsychDoc

    PsychDoc Well-Known Member

    Re: Discussion: BEING HELD ACCOUNTA

    Thanks, marci!
  18. Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Re: Discussion: BEING HELD ACCOUNTA

    I find much to agree with and much to disagree with.

    Easy stuff first. I agree that though seven years is a long time, itâ??s not so bad when compared to ten or twelve. I completely agree that a paid charge off should be treated as a Badge of Honor, not a mark of shame. If someone leaves the military under less than ideal (but not criminal) circumstances, they are given a General discharge, which turns into an Honorable Discharge on the records after six months. Seems fair to me. As long as you have not dealt with a debt, one way or another, it should be there on the record. Seven years, frankly, seems fair. But, once you have shown the character to pay your debt, the punishment should stop, say six months or a year later. Late Pays, same thing. If you are currently 30,60,90 days out on your payments, why should anyone want to lend more money to you? Youâ??re obviously in trouble. But, if you straighten out your ship, after some reasonable period of time, again six months or a year, where ALL of your payments are current, then the black marks should go away. Like wise for inquiries. If you are a careful and deliberate shopper and go looking for a mortgage, unless you can make a decision in less than thirty 30 days, then you will be punished. Seems like collusion on the part of the industry to me. They donâ??t want us to take our time and shop. They donâ??t want us to move our business elsewhere for our own reasons, and they will punish us for even investigating the possibility. For a long time, it has seemed to me like a situation ripe for a RICO lawsuit, which, if you donâ??t know, is the only type of criminal proceeding that can be initiated by a private citizen, without the cooperation of the proper authorities, against an organized foe.

    Now, on to my areas of disagreement. While I recognize that the current system of three credit bureaus is not without flaws, such as Iâ??ve already discussed above, consistent with my earlier post, I believe that the current system should remain. In fact, I believe it is to our advantage that it remains. While the new technologies allow them to know more about us, and further pigeonhole us with assigned numbers, they also allow us to know more about them. How many posts have we seen asking questions like, â??Who pulls TU in Bucksnort, Tennessee (a real town, BTW)?â? Why do you think they are asking that? Because they now they have some uglies on EX and EQ that donâ??t show up on TU, thus allowing them to work their way around it. Itâ??s like having the map to the minefield. Still have to be careful, but at least thereâ??s a way out. Imagine that there was only one credit bureau. Which one would it resemble the most? Experian maybe, who in my experience has been the most difficult to obtain deletions? Or Maybe TU, who though Iâ??ve had great luck getting deletions, has not nearly as complete a record of my good trade lines as the others. As I said before, I think the current system is not too far from â??Just Rightâ?. Anyone with the determination, can work their tale off and fix their little red wagon in relatively short order. It wasnâ??t broken overnight, so thereâ??s no reason to think that we will be able to fix it overnight. Thereâ??s no â??anointed fewâ?. Itâ??s the â??determined fewâ? who will succeed. We can even hire a ringer to help us, and for a reasonable fee.

    Another area of disagreement I would have is in the area of reselling debts. Iâ??ve owned a small business before, and I can tell you that there are times in the life of many a small businessperson that the ability to get some money, ANY money, out of an old, bad debt, is the difference between making it and not making it. Again, the current system provides recourse for us, the Determined Few. As Mr. Bauer repeatedly points out, there are rules of engagement that they must adhere to, just as there are rules that we must adhere to. Neither side is allowed to physically threaten the other, etc. If we donâ??t adhere to those rules, say we mail them an unveiled threat of physical harm, we can be arrested. When we get out of jail, theyâ??ll still want their money. But, if they donâ??t adhere to the rules that apply to them, which are far more numerous than those that apply to us, we have recourse too. Assuming it was not something so blatant as a physical threat, we now have the ability to turn the tables on them, likely wiping out the debt, and the negative tradeline. Same with the CRAâ??s, we can question the veracity of each old tradeline, with out ever telling a lie (you don't approve of it when your kids lie do you? Hmmm?); merely asking them for the proof that they are, by law, required to have. Again, itâ??s hard enough that most people wonâ??t bother, thereby preserving the overall system. But you and I can. Weâ??ve done, or if you are like me, are doing our homework. We can win at their game. You know why? Because we want it more. Nobody out there, not even that damn collector for Capitol One who called me up at 10:30 at night and cussed me out (back way before I knew better), not even he is more determined to keep me down than I am to get back up. So I will win. All of us can win with the current ground rules. Any one with enough determination, enough pure stubbornness, can win. But very few are going to get off easy and ruin the whole system.

    End of Rant.
  19. breeze

    breeze Well-Known Member

    Re: Discussion: BEING HELD ACCOUNTA

    Whew! This thread has lonnnnnnnnnng posts.

    <rubbing eyes>
  20. supershawn

    supershawn Well-Known Member

    Re: Discussion: BEING HELD ACCOUNTA

    At least they are finally about credit!, Sheesh!

    <just teasing>

    These are long posts.....but there really has been a lot of good info, huh?

    Some of it is almost ironic. Most of the people on this board are here because they have a few credit issues they need help with. A lot of the time, that involves getting negative remarks from their past removed from their credit reports.

    Now, (and this is partly assumption, so forgive me) 'we' are the very people many in society look down on as being 'high risk' or even the word I hate (cause it's always used out of context) , 'deadbeat'.

    But if you look at the general opinion on this thread, most of us feel we 'should' be held accountable for our mistakes. We also don't just want a 'hand-out' of free cards.

    We do want to make restitution for our mistakes, but there are flaws and impossibilities in the system that makes that almost impossible.

    The long term effects of the penalties make it almost impossible for us to regain total control of our finances--> high interest rates, poor options for checking/savings, higher rates for car insurance.... it seems like the world is more interested in making money off of us than 'rehabilitating' us.

    I guess the irony is that, if we are so 'irresponsible', why would we agree that we made mistakes and not want freeebies?

    Just more proof that this board is full of really good people. Now if only we could get 'the man' to see that....


Share This Page