question? Does the OJ verdict bother you? Did the Florida vote count bother you? Eventually we all got over these issues. I just hope you can soon realize that Sam paying his old debts instead of creating a safety net for future problems is just STUPID. No one should live in the past. I say it again.
RE: Boy have you got the wrong I do know the process of BK and again it is way too easy to do, many people do this ALL the time. I clerked for a judge a few years ago and you would be amazed and what people would say regarding their reasoning. Sorry but it is not that difficult to file for BK. I am not trying to say that people should not file for BK for some that is the only choice due to health problems or job loss, but I still think a majority do it for the easy way out
RE: question? Of course the OJ verdict bothered me, whom didn't it bother and I don't really care about Florida and what does that have to do with credit??. My point was yes you should be proud when you have really tried to rebuild your credit, but shouldn't be so darn proud when you just stopped paying and sat and waited for a few years and just start getting credit again, that to me isn't something to be proud of.
RE: question? Of course it is something to be proud of. Some people like you said bk over and over. I guess my point about OJ and George W, just flew over your head. Somethings are just not fair but just the way it is. That just like saying to the fat lady who loses 100 pounds that she should have never been fat. Would it matter if she was fat because she had no discipline or if she had a thyroid problem. Or saying to the college graduate at 35 that they shouldnot been a drop out at 19. Many, many people get bad credit and dont do anything about it. They go subprime their whole lives and could care less. I have many friends who know they will just borrow from Mom and Daddy and could care less when I talk about this site and others like it. Sam should be commended for making a positive change. Especially when it seems initially that you wont get a prime card ever. I guess you figure he should pay it back right. Well that was really important the credit bureaus would allow the negative info to be removed if you pay or at least have it count less against you. No deal. They could careless. So my question finally Shell is .....then Why should you? roni
RE: question? Well you make valid points and normally I don't care about anyone but myself and my kids, but I just found sam's bragging post a little too much that's all.
Roni I am glad you are here to help everyone Roni, and most of the time I think you're advice is great. I also don't have a problem with you mentioning that it doesn't help you're credit score to pay old debts, but please don't tell people it is stupid to pay their old debts. Let them be the judge of that. If people want to pay their past debts, more power to them. Don't tell them stupid for paying debts that they actually did ring up
You conveniently switched my w I dont apologize for my statement. I didnot say one was stupid for paying old debts. I DO FEEL IT IS STUPID to pay old debts before you re-establish credit or credit a stable financial basis. Read the post again. That is just your interpretation of what I said. If you read the 19 post prior to my comment you should remember that Shell feels that Sam should not brag out being able to pay his new bills because he has not paid his past bills. Sam corrected that by saying that he is not rich now. He is however getting by and is trying to establish something for his children. THerefore, my statement was based on that line of comments. I just hate it when someone turns my words around. roni
RE: You conveniently switched excuse me, that should be create a financial basis roni roni wrote: ------------------------------- I dont apologize for my statement. I didnot say one was stupid for paying old debts. I DO FEEL IT IS STUPID to pay old debts before you re-establish credit or credit a stable financial basis. Read the post again. That is just your interpretation of what I said. If you read the 19 post prior to my comment you should remember that Shell feels that Sam should not brag out being able to pay his new bills because he has not paid his past bills. Sam corrected that by saying that he is not rich now. He is however getting by and is trying to establish something for his children. THerefore, my statement was based on that line of comments. I just hate it when someone turns my words around. roni
RE: Moral issues? This board is intended for credit building or rebuilding. Individual opinions relating to the morality of failing to pay past debts don't fit that criteria. Sam has gone a long way to build his credit and is very appreciated for sharing his advice and experience. Whether or how much he chooses to pay, is his creditors' business, not yours. And while I don't think what he did was bragging, he has worked hard enough to justify a bit of that too. Saar
RE: You conveniently switched "No one should live in the past." I largely agree, but that does seem to support Marvin's interpretation of what you said. But then I disagree with what he said on his own. Roni, your opinions are good enough to stand on their own. They need less defending than you might think.
RE: Moral issues? Saar, you're mostly right about Sam, but I think we can use opinions from other people about moral issues. Why? Because sooner or later we will consider those issues ourselves. Once the issue of survival is settled, people want to think of themselves as good people. That may take paying off a few debts, depending on what they believe goodness to be. Other people's opinions always influence our own ideas of goodness. One more probably won't hurt. We may disagree, but at least it got us thinking. Roni was right that you need to build a new safety net for future problems. That's what I'm doing now. However, I have plans to pay my debts in the future. My telephone bill was totally legitimate, so I feel compelled to pay it in full, just not in such a way that it hurts my credit history or rewards a dishonest collection agency. Those are all moral judgments. I consider my eviction judgment only partially valid, plus I intensely dislike both the lawyers and landlords involved. So I feel compelled to bargain for much less than full payment. Those are also moral judgments. I won't promise to value their opinions, but other people can certainly express them in response to this post...
RE: Wait a minute.... Shell, the really funny thing here is that you probably DON'T have the same scores as people with chargeoffs or bankruptcies. In addition, your scores will improve faster than theirs will, and you could obtain prime cards before they could. While I love to see you express your opinion, your premises are clearly erroneous.
RE: Moral issues? RichGuy wrote: "My telephone bill was totally legitimate, so I feel compelled to pay it in full, just not in such a way that it hurts my credit history or rewards a dishonest collection agency. Those are all moral judgments." Are they? You are compelled to pay it, if at all, for legal reasons, which may or may not exist. And not rewarding a dishonest collection agency is a matter of practical policy, so as not to create an atmosphere of law violations. When it comes to doing business, the law is my guide. If we interpret the law differently, then there are courts to tell us who is right. If we interpret morality differently, no one can resolve it for us. "I won't promise to value their opinions, but other people can certainly express them in response to this post..." Absolutely! So long as they address credit building issues, rather than pure preaching; Otherwise this won't be a credit board, but a general-purpose board. Pure preaching per se is allowed where it is welcome. Saar
RE: Moral issues? Saar, The morality of credit building is a valuable sidelight to credit building itself. If others interpret morality differently from us, we resolve the differences ourselves. That is what the human mind is designed to do. The point here is that different opinions, and our resolution thereof, give our own opinions substance and meaning. "Pure preaching is allowed where it is welcome" is certainly not a legal prescription. It is a moral judgment. The law allows more than the operators of this site (remember them?) allow, and far more than you or I would welcome. You or I can't allow or disallow anything at all on this board. We can only approve or disapprove what we read, surely not a matter of law. When you state that "the law is my guide," you are stating the essence of legal positivism, which is only one approach to legal philosophy. Natural law and other approaches also exist, linking law to ethics, or to history, sociology, or economics, something other than positive law. BTW, I think it's great that you're in law school. I wish I were in law school myself.
RE: Moral issues? Richguy wrote: "The morality of credit building is a valuable sidelight to credit building itself." Perhaps, unfortunately urging Sam to pay his past debts has nothing to do with credit building and even if it did, that remark was not motivated nor prompted by credit building concerns. "'Pure preaching is allowed where it is welcome' is certainly not a legal prescription." Nor was it implied to be. It referred to the excessive preaching, and all I said was that even if such debts existed, they're nobody else's business but Sam's creditors. "Natural law and other approaches also exist, linking law to ethics, or to history, sociology, or economics, something other than positive law." Absolutely, and what seperates ALL jusrists from anarchists is the recognition that it is the court that is authorized to resolve disputes BY SAYING WHAT THE LAW IS OR MEANS. Even a prominent natural law theorist as St. Thomas Aquinas acknowledged that it is not for each member of the community to determine whether or not it is ok to break the human law on the premise that it conflicts with the Eternal Law. "It is emphatically the duty and province of the judicial department to say what the law is", remember? I'll stop this thread here, before it too becomes more judgmental and off-topic than necessary. Saar
Hard work???? So you believe having TEN chargeoffs totaling 10K and doing nothing for a few years then starting again with subprime is hard work, you must be joking. Yes he has come along way with credit, but hard work had NOTHING to do with it.
RE: Hard work???? Income often requires hard work, and all credit is based on income. Credit is simply accelerated income. If Sam earned his money and made his payments on time, that took hard work. If that's all he can do now, then there is no further moral decision to be made now. If he were rolling in money, then he might want to consider whether to pay some old debts. But rolling in money doesn't always correlate with hard work.
