WOW! Somone finally agreed with me! See that, Doc? pbbbbbbbbbbbbbtttttttttt! (my best text rasberry) <grin> Shawn
I was in court once because I am a writer and I saw an 78-year-old man who RAPED (not molested) his five-year-old granddaughter get 2 years and he admitted he did it and liked it! Tell me that's fair and I'll give ya an online smack
author: not sure what state you live in but we have mandated sentencing here, and major drug dealers, rapists, molesters, and murdered do a whole lot more time than that "to the door".
Sam- I think you are down here in GA too if I remember correctly..... (if so, did you buy your car at JE or AOA?) While I think most 'criminals' get off way to easy, I will agree that thinks are pretty strict 'dwon here'. Especially in Gwinnett County. I recently had the 'pleasure' of having a stalker. While in court getting a restraining order (apperantly her third in a year for stalking or similar), I was able to witness a bevy of cases (because I was of course the last case called). I witnessed a young girl who had obtained three credit cards in other peoples names (one was Cap One, one was Amex, don't remember the other) and charged approx $2500.00 over a three month period. Her sentence? 10 YEARS PER CARD! Now, they did let her serve those concurrently, but still, that's 30 years on her record. While I think that what she did was digusting, I think 30 years is a lot. Her 'restituion' was going to be over $10,000.00 for the criminal part- the victims have the option of a civil suit. They were going to let her serve the first two years on 'work release' and then judge review her behavior. Can you imagine? Was that really worth it for $2500.00? In general, I think people are 'punished' much harder over their credit mistakes than 'criminals' are for the crimes they commit. I am not saying that someone who just 'didn't pay their bills should be given a second chance. BUT, how about someone who has a medical emergency or goes through divorce? What if they have a charge-off but then pay it? We all know a 'paid-chargeoff' hurts your score as much as an unpaid one....is that really fair? Seven full years for that? I really do not think so. Shawn
Hey, wait a minute. The 7 years you're talking about for rapists (and, yeah, here in Tennessee they get far more than that) are SPENT IN JAIL. Those 7 years are a whole lot different than what we're talking about. Whenever anybody asks questions along the lines of, "So how should we be evaluated vis-a-vis risk when making an application for credit?" -- which is an entirely reasonable question -- somebody else always pipes up with "HEY, IF I'M CONVICTED OF RAPING MY DAUGHTER I MAY NOT GET 7 YEARS" as if that's a great argument. Here's why it isn't: 1) The "spent time" (complete incarceration vs. inability to get credit) is so qualitatively different, the argument isn't logical on its face. 2) In my state, sexual harassment is classified differently than sexual assault, sexual assault is classified differently than rape, rape is classified differently than aggravated rape, aggravated rape is classified differently than rape of a minor, and rape of a minor is classified differently from rape of one's OWN minor which then involves collateral issues like custody, child abuse and endangerment laws, etc. It's a good bet that raping your daughter will land you in jail for a lot longer than 7 years, plus you will likely lose your daughter and other children for life, not to mention the fact that you have probably destroyed your marriage as well (in most cases). Let's drop this silly comparison to a late-pay tradeline, shall we? Back to my reasonable question, does anyone here believe that we should be held accountable at all for, say, not paying for merchandise we've taken from stores through subsequent non-payment. If not, why not? If yes, how we should be held accountable, how should that happen, and for how long? Doc
Doc- Great point about the merchandise. I honestly never even thought of that. Really makes me think.... That is a really good point. Technically, you have ontained it without payment, but, the Credit Card company obtained it for you with your promise of payment to them. Probably should not be classified as 'stealing' as you (hopefully) did not purchase it with the intent of non-payment. But, was the 'financing' 'secured' by the goods? I don't think that's in the contract is it? I would think that the 'finanancing' is non-secured. It was obtained simply by your signature and pyment history. Recourse could be obtained thrugh monies owed, but would they have claim to the goods? Very interesting question....... Although, also consider my point about 'paid' charge-off's , especially those resulting from explainable hardship, i.e. medical reasons and divorce. Would you not agree that those should have a different 'punishment'? Should a person who honestly makes good on the amount owed still be burdened with a 'Scarlet I-9' even though payment was made? About the rape case in Tennessee...they don't count it as long as it as long as it's a relative, right? <ducks and runs> just teasing, Doc! I'm a Southerner now myself, too (well, they probably don't consider me one yet), so I can't say those things anymore. Shawn
LOL, Shawn, well actually here in Tennessee everyone is everyone's cousin anyway, so what the heck. Actually, on a serious note, and rape is a serious topic for God's sake, I forgot to mention the victim's permanent psychological scars. That makes that horrible "I may as well have raped my daughter" argument even more vicious and just plain ridiculous. Anyway, I agree that paid chargeoffs should be treated differently than unpaid chargeoffs. Absolutely. Anybody who ends up paying for what they bought is in a different category than someone who doesn't with respect to their respective credit histories. Doc
lbrown59, are you avoiding answering my questions because... 1) I'm right? or 2) I'm talking over your head? or 3) I'm talking far below your level? or 4) You just don't like me? or 5) (fill in the blank) I'm trying to interact with you and put forth a few questions here just for you. Not answering is kinda like saying, "wow, you got me there," and I know you aren't just rolling over that easily. Would you kindly look back in this thread and answer the direct questions I've put on the table for you? Thanks, Doc
Creditors read negitatives into a credit report that aren't even there while at the same time we don't get credit where credit is due us.How long should we suffer for this? Is it 3,5.7 10 years or what?
Actually, you didn't answer my question. Your answer was "we already are -- what do you want?" My question is -- do YOU think we should be held accountable at all? I'm not asking whether or not we are currently held accountable (of course we are). I'm asking if YOU think we should be held accountable when potential creditors are evaluating whether or not to loan us money (as with a credit card, loan, mortgage, car loan, etc.). What do you think? Should we be held accountable? (I'm asking you.) Doc
In the first place risk and fico are not related!However the general public has been duped into thinking it is.
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. Shawn p.s. Think of how this could benefit the economy....
