Help - refused apartment based on Credit Report
Rogue
I’ve recently become interested in my credit report since I have been
turned down for things a lot lately.
About a month ago, I applied to rent an apartment and was denied a
rental because of what showed on my credit report. I asked the
manager to provide me in writing the refusal and which credit
reporting agency she obtained the negative information from. She said
she no, she didn’t have time for that (and her attitude basically said
‘get lost’).
I thought it was my right under consumer credit laws to get this
information. Is this law applicable only to applying for credit/loans
and does not extend to rentals? If that is the case, seems to me that
the rental management community has no right pulling credit reports if
they’re not gonna play by the rules.
I then cashed in my “one free credit report per year” from Experian
and looked at it. To their credit, they got it to me very quickly.
Which leads me to my next question: How do you interpret these things?
Some things are obvious and Experian did provide *some* minimal
information in their enclosure. But all in all, I don’t know why some
of the things are shown the way they are.
Does anyone know of a good Web resource for *good* information on how
to interpret a Credit Report? I tried using Alta Vista search values:
“CREDIT REPORT” INTERPRET
... and came up with some things, but mostly credit repair marketing
junk and general info. I would also consider a purchasing a good book
if there are some out there on this subject.
Since my credit seems to be lousy, what is to stop me from applying
for things I can’t possibly get (like American Express) and using the
refusal letter to get free credit reports? I’ll need continual
reports while I repair my credit and this might be a great way to save
$$$ while I work on cleaning up my record.
And please.. no lectures about “abusing the system”. The credit
industry is perhaps the most abusive, dishonest, cunning, powerful,
underhanded threat to the rights of the individual that ever existed.
More and more decisions are being controlled by credit reports and
here it has affected my right to find a place to live - what I
consider a basic human right. You can bet I’ll get what I can for
free out of them!
Anyway, any help will be greatly appreciated,
Thanks!
Scott,
Email to : ro...@accessone.com
(Header has been junkfilled to avoid junk collectors)
Jean & Bill
It has been my experience that once you start writing to the credit
bureaus to correct your info, they send copies of the report each time
they respond.
I came across a site that sells a book on do-it-yourself credit
repair--I do not own it, and can make no recommendations, but you might
take a chance. It's at: http://www.repaircredit.com/ Better yet,
try your public library for books on credit repair.
It's really not difficult to do; you just have to be persistent. And
remember, the big three bureaus do not share information, so correcting
one item means writing three letters.
Jeannie
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%Mothers' Center of Suffolk, Inc. page:%
% http://ps.superb.net/momtalk %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Sharon Kazmierski
> Since my credit seems to be lousy, what is to stop me from applying
> for things I can’t possibly get (like American Express) and using the
> refusal letter to get free credit reports? I’ll need continual
> reports while I repair my credit and this might be a great way to save
> $$$ while I work on cleaning up my record.
>
> And please.. no lectures about “abusing the system”. The credit
> industry is perhaps the most abusive, dishonest, cunning, powerful,
> underhanded threat to the rights of the individual that ever existed.
> More and more decisions are being controlled by credit reports and
> here it has affected my right to find a place to live - what I
> consider a basic human right. You can bet I’ll get what I can for
> free out of them!
The problem is that *everytime* you apply for a credit card (like
American Express), it will show up on your credit report. If it is
denied to you, then it *will* damage your credit rating. Everytime
that you apply for credit, this is reported to the credit bureau.
I would not recommend applying for credit in order to get the free
credit reports.
--
Sharon Kazmierski
Latin Teacher
XenoRaine
I don't think it would be a good idea to continually apply for things you
know you cannot get (ie: American Express). In order for those companies
to turn you down, they have to run your credit report which results in an
"inquiry." Too many inquiries on your credit report is harmful.
If a company sees an inquiry for FCNB Mastercard and sees that you have an
FCNB Mastercard, that is understandable. But if you have an inquiry that
does not match anything else on your report, that comes across as "well
they turned them down, so why shouldn't we??"
So, not only do you need to rectify the negative credit information, you
also need to remove the needless inquiries. These are usually easy to do
within 3 months of them showing up because companies are too busy to keep
up with that.
Also, do not ever round off your income on an application.
~raine~
**we all dream of the forbidden...but some of us make those dreams come true...**
Jeff Carpenter
On Sat, 22 Feb 1997 21:45:18 GMT, ro...@junkfill.accessone.com (Rogue)
wrote:
>I’ve recently become interested in my credit report since I have been
>turned down for things a lot lately.
No offense but this probably also explains WHY you are being turned
down for things. You should have had interest in your credit report
all along.
>I then cashed in my “one free credit report per year” from Experian
>and looked at it. To their credit, they got it to me very quickly.
>Which leads me to my next question: How do you interpret these things?
>Some things are obvious and Experian did provide *some* minimal
>information in their enclosure. But all in all, I don’t know why some
>of the things are shown the way they are.
Basically accounts are listed with either an R or an I designation. R
is for a revolving loan and I is for installment loans. Next there is
a number 1 through 7. A 1 is the highest mark or payment history. A
7 is basically disaster. Some reports will also list your payment
history by month for a period of time.
>Since my credit seems to be lousy, what is to stop me from applying
>for things I can’t possibly get (like American Express) and using the
>refusal letter to get free credit reports? I’ll need continual
>reports while I repair my credit and this might be a great way to save
>$$$ while I work on cleaning up my record.
A lot of inquiries (which is what happens when you apply for loans)
are viewed negatively by creditors, especially when they occur in a
short amount of time. This would only hurt your situation. Since is
takes 45-60 days for items to report, you could easily get by with
quarterly updates which would only run you $32 per year. The other
option is to join a credit monitoring service for about $50 per year
and get as many reports as you see fit.
>And please.. no lectures about “abusing the system”. The credit
>industry is perhaps the most abusive, dishonest, cunning, powerful,
>underhanded threat to the rights of the individual that ever existed.
>More and more decisions are being controlled by credit reports and
>here it has affected my right to find a place to live - what I
>consider a basic human right. You can bet I’ll get what I can for
>free out of them!
What ever makes you feel better. YOUR lack of responsibility in your
financial life has caused you not to be able to find a place to live.
It has nothing to do with "the system."
*************************************************
Visit "The Consulting Engineer's Resource"
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jeffcarp
*************************************************
Jeff Carpenter Des Moines, IA
*************************************************
Barb452
>Since my credit seems to be lousy, what is to stop me from applying
>for things I can’t possibly get (like American Express) and using the
>refusal letter to get free credit reports? I’ll need continual
>reports while I repair my credit and this might be a great way to save
>$$$ while I work on cleaning up my record.
Be careful -- this is a dangerous strategy for your future credit
worthiness. Each time you apply for something and your credit is checked,
it gets listed on your credit report as an inquiry. Having too many
inquiries is a negative on your credit report and will also get you turned
down for credit.
"There is nothing stronger in the world than gentleness." -- Suyin
Katie
Rogue wrote:
> Since my credit seems to be lousy, what is to stop me from applying
> for things I can’t possibly get (like American Express) and using the
> refusal letter to get free credit reports? I’ll need continual
> reports while I repair my credit and this might be a great way to save
> $$$ while I work on cleaning up my record.
Because every time your credit is checked by anyone, it shows up on your
report. Then people can refuse you credit on the basis of having had
too many inquiries. They feel like someone who is applying for credit
cards over and over is a bad credit risk. So you'd end up with an even
worse credit record and defeat your purpose!
--
Katie :)
actual email address: bra...@nettally.com
"Darkness is the great awakener...in facing adversity I can find my
freedom." --Joan Borysenko
J. Wermont
In article <19970224050...@ladder02.news.aol.com> bar...@aol.com (Barb452) writes:
>Be careful -- this is a dangerous strategy for your future credit
>worthiness. Each time you apply for something and your credit is checked,
>it gets listed on your credit report as an inquiry. Having too many
>inquiries is a negative on your credit report and will also get you turned
>down for credit.
Hello,
Several people have mentioned this, but haven't said why. Why are inquiries
considered negative, anyway?
J. Wermont
jwer...@netcom.com
"Arwen"
Jean & Bill wrote:
>
> It has been my experience that once you start writing to the credit
> bureaus to correct your info, they send copies of the report each time
> they respond.
>
> I came across a site that sells a book on do-it-yourself credit
> repair--I do not own it, and can make no recommendations, but you might
> take a chance. It's at: http://www.repaircredit.com/ Better yet,
> try your public library for books on credit repair.
>
> It's really not difficult to do; you just have to be persistent. And
> remember, the big three bureaus do not share information, so correcting
> one item means writing three letters.
>
Sometime ago, I downloaded a shareware program (I think from C-Serve)
designed to help you repair your own credit. It contained addresses for
the various credit bureaus, explanations of how the credit reporting
system works, and how to read a credit report. The best part of the
program is the letter writng system: you plug in a few standard items
(ie, SSN, name, address, etc.) and the program will write a variety of
form letters for you, such as: a letter requesting that an outdated item
be removed from your report, requesting an investigation of an entry you
believe to be incorrect (if the credit bureau cannot confirm a negative
entry, they must delete it from the report), "explanation" letters for
negative entries which have been confirmed (you have the right to have a
100 word explanation for a bad credit item entered into your report),
follow up letters, etc. It contained many useful tips (such as: only
contest one negative entry at a time- contesting every bad item on a
report can be considered "frivolous" and a waste of the bureau's time)
and a strategy to help you repair your credit without paying someone
else. Do a Web search or search C-Serve for "credit report".
Laurie Hobart
Nn Mon, 24 Feb 1997 17:46:35 GMT, jwer...@netcom.com (J. Wermont)
wrote:
not sure but I know that happens. I applied for a few cards at one
time &they all got turned down. I feel that if the card companies are
willing to give mulitple appications for credit they shouldn't hold it
against you for taking advantage of it if you can afford it &have good
credit to begin with.
Laurie
********************************************************
Want your friends to be able to find you on the Net?
Need an easy link to your PC based Web Server?
http://206.155.34.225
********************************************************
XenoRaine
<<Several people have mentioned this, but haven't said why. Why are
inquiries
considered negative, anyway?
J. Wermont
jwer...@netcom.com>>
Inquiries that don't relate to anything on your credit report gives off
the illusion that you have been applying for a lot of credit and have been
turned down for whatever reasons. Therefore, if someone sees 11 inquiries
on your report from different credit card companies, the natural
assumption is: if they didn't grant credit, why should we??
Inquiries usually stay on the report for 2 years. Usually after 6 months
you can request to have them removed because most companies don't waste
time and space keeping up with who applied for credit more than 6 months
ago. It seems like you shouldn't have more than 3-4 inquiries on your
report total. Also, if you pay your bills well, a current credit card
company may pull your account as a preliminary to giving you a larger
credit limit (even if you don't ask for an increase they do this often).
Annette C. Hollmann
I was refused an apartment once because they said I didn't earn enough
money to afford it. The rent was 42% of my gross income, but it was the
lowest price in a safe neighbourhood. They relented when I offered to pay
the entire year's rent in full in return for reasonable interest payments
on my credit balance :-) I did show them bank statements to back up my
offer. In general, if you can prove that you can pay the rent, they will
approve you.
Annette
Bill Funk
Amy Young-Leith wrote:
...
> Can one write to the credit reporting agencies and request that they not
> give out ANY information about me?
>
> The reason I ask is because the reports I have received explain that some
> of the "enquiries" we see on our report are done by companies who are
> looking to lend credit. The agency says that they give out nothing more
> than name and address. However, this shows up as an inquery to your
> report. If this can indeed damage your credit... what can you do to stop
> it?
>
> amy
You can certainly ask, but it won't do much good.
When someone runs a preliminary check on your credit, that's all it is.
This doesn't count against you at all.
For example, when you get a "pre-approved" credit card application in
the mail, they've done a prelim check, only. To do a full check, they
need
your permission (which you give by fillijg out and returning the
application). The full check is what they use to determine your credit
level.
No company is allowed to access your credit history from one of the
reporting agencies without your permission. The trick is, what is
considered to be permission. Say you go to a car dealership, and fill
out a preliminary, or "qualifying" credit app, with no obligation on
your part. That's permission for them to check your credit, even
though you have no intention of actually getting a loan. This is
one reason that you are told to determine the cost of a vehicle
first, *then* determine the payment arangements, after you decide to
buy. This goes for any major purchase, or credit card application:
make sure you *want* the service before you apply for it.
Bill
Sharon Kazmierski
In article <jwermontE...@netcom.com>, jwer...@netcom.com (J.
Wermont) wrote:
> In article <19970224050...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
bar...@aol.com (Barb452) writes:
> >Be careful -- this is a dangerous strategy for your future credit
> >worthiness. Each time you apply for something and your credit is checked,
> >it gets listed on your credit report as an inquiry. Having too many
> >inquiries is a negative on your credit report and will also get you turned
> >down for credit.
>
> Hello,
>
> Several people have mentioned this, but haven't said why. Why are inquiries
> considered negative, anyway?
Multiple inquiries are considered negative. Creditors who see multiple
inquiries and multiple denials wonder why you continually are trying to
seek out credit which you apparently cannot afford.
Joe Agro
> Multiple inquiries are considered negative. Creditors who see multiple
> inquiries and multiple denials wonder why you continually are trying to
> seek out credit which you apparently cannot afford.
>
> --
> Sharon Kazmierski
> Latin Teacher
I would tend to disagree with this statement... Although I have no clue
so don't consider my comment of any importance if there is proof to
validate the idea mentioned above.
I think that creditors who see multiple inquiries may have three
possible reactions:
1. If you have had delinquint payments, then yes, they will see it as a
negative aspect.
2. If you are not delinquint in any payments and hold amny cards, loans,
etc, they see you as someone who somehow pays all their buills but may
be unstable in teh future and it may be seen as negative...
3. They may see frequent inquiries, many paid bills and loans that all
have been paid on time... This is a good scenerio. They see that the
inquiries are related to past positive performance by you and it may
actually help you. Rare as this scenerio is, This is where I would
fall.
Not everyone has a Credit Card and lots of debt... Thank God!
Joe
--
Hmmm.. Oh. Here starts my sigfile! Be therefore warned.
Wanna make some cash on the side working from home in your spare time?
Ask me about my job offer.
Wanna get rid of some of that old computer / electronics / video game
equipment as a tax deduction? Ask me about G-CLIC.
Will Bell
In a previous article, aly...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Amy Young-Leith) wrote:
>
>Can one write to the credit reporting agencies and request that they not
>give out ANY information about me?
You can write to at least Experian (f.k.a. TRW) and ask to be removed
from their list. They have some kind of special code word that they
call this "service"; you could probably find it on their website.
A recent solicitation gave address to write to all the majors to request
removal from their solicitation list, but I threw it out, sorry.
Anyway, the inquiries of this nature ("pre-screen" applications) don't
really count, anyway. On the Experian report they show up in a separate
section that is not sent to the real creditors or users of the bureau.
--
Will Bell -- w...@netcom.com -- with my naked eye I saw Arlington, TX
jlayo
Joe Agro wrote:
> 3. They may see frequent inquiries, many paid bills and loans that all
> have been paid on time... This is a good scenerio. They see that the
> inquiries are related to past positive performance by you and it may
> actually help you. Rare as this scenerio is, This is where I would
> fall.
But the original poster said he (?) was planning on applying for cards
he knew he couldn't get (like AMEX), just so he'd get a free credit
report when he was turned down. I doubt anyone is going to look on
frequent inquiries in this scenario favorably.
Lisa
Maria Rost Rublee
Joe Agro (du...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: > Multiple inquiries are considered negative. Creditors who see multiple
: > inquiries and multiple denials wonder why you continually are trying to
: > seek out credit which you apparently cannot afford.
: > Sharon Kazmierski
: > Latin Teacher
: I would tend to disagree with this statement... Although I have no clue
: so don't consider my comment of any importance if there is proof to
: validate the idea mentioned above.
: I think that creditors who see multiple inquiries may have three
: possible reactions:
: 1. If you have had delinquint payments, then yes, they will see it as a
: negative aspect.
: 2. If you are not delinquint in any payments and hold amny cards, loans,
: etc, they see you as someone who somehow pays all their buills but may
: be unstable in teh future and it may be seen as negative...
: 3. They may see frequent inquiries, many paid bills and loans that all
: have been paid on time... This is a good scenerio. They see that the
: inquiries are related to past positive performance by you and it may
: actually help you. Rare as this scenerio is, This is where I would
: fall.
Too many inquiries *is* negative. This doesn't mean "pre-screen"
inquiries, which aren't reported to anyone but you. This means full-scale
inquiries. I applied for a Watchovia, have perfect credit, etc., and they
turned me down for having too many inquiries. :) Of course, Wachovia is
one of the toughest cards to get
Maria
muls...@sp2n09.missouri.edu
J. Wermont (jwer...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Several people have mentioned this, but haven't said why. Why are inquiries
: considered negative, anyway?
Because recent inquiries mean recent applications. And if you have a
number of recent inquiries, credit issuers have no way of knowing whether
you are in the process of making arrangements with other issuers. You
*could* simoultaneously be getting credit from multiple places. And they
don't want that.
Karl Pollak
Joe Agro <du...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Multiple inquiries are considered negative. Creditors who see multiple
>> inquiries and multiple denials wonder why you continually are trying to
>> seek out credit which you apparently cannot afford.
>> Sharon Kazmierski
>I would tend to disagree with this statement... Although I have no clue
>so don't consider my comment of any importance if there is proof to
>validate the idea mentioned above.
Yes, Joe, there is proof to what Sharon is saying.
The term for such a person is "credit shopper" and is generally
regarded as a bad news.
>1. If you have had delinquint payments, then yes, they will see it as a
>negative aspect.
If three is other derogatory information on the record, I don't need
to look at anything else. The guy's toast.
>2. If you are not delinquint in any payments and hold amny cards, loans,
>etc, they see you as someone who somehow pays all their buills but may
>be unstable in teh future and it may be seen as negative...
Again, if the guy is already overextended, I don't need to look at how
many other inquiries there are.
>3. They may see frequent inquiries, many paid bills and loans that all
>have been paid on time... This is a good scenerio.
Sorry Joe, it still doesn't matter. If you have too many balls on the
go, sooner or later you're going to drop a few. I don't want mine to
be amongst them. Still no loan.
>They see that the inquiries are related to past positive performance by
>you and it may actually help you. Rare as this scenerio is, This is
>where I would fall.
Great. However, in that case I would have to wonder why are you
coming all of a sudden to me and not go back to the creditors who
already know you and have had a positive experience with you?
Still, none of that has anything to do with a lot of inquiries on your
bureau record.
>Not everyone has a Credit Card and lots of debt... Thank God!
However, that by itself does not necessarily make him a good credit
risk. It could just as easily be that the guy has no debts because
nobody is willing to lend any money to him in the firt place.
----------------------
Karl Pollak
[Respond in this newsgroup only. Send _no_ e-mail]
Sonia-ivette Roman
Hi! Maybe if you get a letter of recommendaiton from your former landlord
that will help you.
I agree that more and more places (including emplyers!!) are starting to
use credit reports as an arbiter of worthiness for jobs, apartments, and
other stuff. It stinks. Especially for those of us who are trying to
be frugal, and pay off debts.
--Sonia-Ivette
Karl Pollak
jwer...@netcom.com (J. Wermont) wrote:
>Several people have mentioned this, but haven't said why. Why are inquiries
>considered negative, anyway?
It has been already answered by a few peole, but briefly: it is not
inquiries as such that create a bad impression. They are quite normal
in the course of business. Too many inquiries within a relatively
short time span indicate that the customer is either shopping for
credit unsuccessfully or that he is in the process of opening too many
credit accounts. Either eventuality marks him as a poor credit risk.
The idea of applying for credit knowing that the customer will be
turned down as was suggested here by somebody, just to get a copy of
your record, is downright idiotic. But it ranks on par with most of
the advice given here.
April Wilson
I was recently denied a credit card (even though I have an EXCELLENT
credit history and high income) because there had been "too many
inquiries" into my credit history lately.
Be careful!
April Wilson
Karl Pollak
"\"Arwen\"" <ar...@cnct.com> wrote:
>Sometime ago, I downloaded a shareware program (I think from C-Serve)
>designed to help you repair your own credit.
You can NOT "repair" your credit. Only time can do that.Crfedit
reporting is based on facts, not on lame "explanations".
>form letters for you, such as: a letter requesting that an outdated item
>be removed from your report,
outdated items are automatically purged at regular intervals. In any
case, if the info is old, creditors do not pay attention to it anyway.
>requesting an investigation of an entry you
>believe to be incorrect (if the credit bureau cannot confirm a negative
>entry, they must delete it from the report),
This is the ONLY good reason for writing to a credit bureau.
>"explanation" letters for
>negative entries which have been confirmed (you have the right to have a
>100 word explanation for a bad credit item entered into your report),
Yes, you are quite right. The "explanations" indeed do get included
in your record. They are a never ending source of amusement to the few
credit officers who still read the reports. They are of no help in
making a positive credit decision. If anything, it marks the debtor
not only as a loser, but as a sore loser. Automated scoring systems
of course pay no never mind to them.
>Do a Web search or search C-Serve for "credit report".
Save yourself the time and effort, and concentrate on paying your
bills on time.
Karl Pollak
aly...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Amy Young-Leith) wrote:
>Can one write to the credit reporting agencies and request that they not
>give out ANY information about me?
Yes, you can write anything to anyone. Will anyone honour that
request? Absolutely NOT! That information is the property of the
creditor, not yours.
>The reason I ask is because the reports I have received explain that some
>of the "enquiries" we see on our report are done by companies who are
>looking to lend credit. The agency says that they give out nothing more
>than name and address. However, this shows up as an inquery to your
>report. If this can indeed damage your credit... what can you do to stop
>it?
No one can request your credit record unless they have a WRITTEN
autorization from you. That authorization is usually given on a
credit or employment application. If you find that anyone had been
making unauthorized inquiries at the the Credit Bureau about you, you
should contact the consumer services department of your state
government and file a formal complaint.
It is considered to be invasion of your privacy. First offence usually
carries only a rather stern warning from the government, subsequent
offences (even against other people by the same creditor) are often
subject to fines anywhere from $500 to $5,000.
So if this creditor is already on the consumer department's shit list
and they pull your record without authorization after they had been
warned not to do that, they can be slapped with a fine. (Varies
depending on your local laws).
Karl Pollak
Sonia-ivette Roman <sro...@delphi.com> wrote:
>I agree that more and more places (including emplyers!!) are starting to
>use credit reports as an arbiter of worthiness for jobs, apartments, and
>other stuff. It stinks. Especially for those of us who are trying to
>be frugal, and pay off debts.
Sonia-Ivette,
People who use their credit privileges wisely do not _need_ to be
especially frugal in order to pay off their debts. Landlords, credit
offciers or emplpoyers are not concerned about the amounts of your
debts. What they want to see is how responsibly you have been using
credit and how well you live up to your obligations.
I would certainly not employ somebody to handle customers' or the
employer's money if I know that this person is deep in debt and has
had difficulties in repaying it.
XenoRaine
<<No one can request your credit record unless they have a WRITTEN
autorization from you. That authorization is usually given on a
credit or employment application. If you find that anyone had been
making unauthorized inquiries at the the Credit Bureau about you, you
should contact the consumer services department of your state
government and file a formal complaint. >>
I disagree on this statement. Two times I have had my credit report run
without my knowledge. Furthermore, the information next to the inquiry
was nothing but numbers and letters which even TRW could not explain.
Under "normal" circumstances, if you don't recognize who made the inquiry,
the credit reporting agency can tell you who that code represents. In
this case they could not. And to top it off, they didn't remove the
inquiry because I couldn't tell them who it was. I couldn't report to any
government agency because no one could tell me who it was that I should be
reporting.
My credit report may be their property, but it affects my life. The
credit reporting agencies are the ones that have made this into the game
that it is. I merely learn their rules and beat them at their own game.
Merely paying one's bills on time and in full is no longer enough in a lot
of people's cases to maintain a good report.
Daniel J. Littlefield
>
> Scott-
What you need to do is get to a point where you don't need a credit report
at all....Check out http://www.be-debtfree.com to see what I mean.
It has some interesteing philosophy on credit reports.
Good Luck-
Dan
>
>
karen porter
> Annette C. Hollmann wrote:
> >
> > I was refused an apartment once because they said I didn't earn enough
> > money to afford it. The rent was 42% of my gross income, but it was the
> > lowest price in a safe neighbourhood. They relented when I offered to pay
> > the entire year's rent in full in return for reasonable interest payments
> > on my credit balance :-) I did show them bank statements to back up my
> > offer. In general, if you can prove that you can pay the rent, they will
> > approve you.
> >
> > Annette
I also had trouble recently finding an apartment due to not earning enough
money. the apt. i was looking at was a roommate situation where i was to
pay half the rent. the landlord required all roomates to sign a lease and
have the whole rent be 25% of one's income. Look, if i had that much money
i wouldn't need a roommate!! Most of the renters in my area are like this.
therefore it is exceedingly difficult for people with modest incomes to
find housing in my area (avg. rent is around $600 per month). They said my
mom could sign a letter of credit, but her income was also inadequate for
them (her income is modest, but she has large amounts in stock). i
eventually found a smaller, less strict company who would rent to me with
a letter of credit.
how are people supposed to find housing??? no wonder so many are homeless
or living is substandard conditions.
karen
jab...@iglobal.net
As a landlord, I have only started using credit reports last August.
I have been driven to it. We have always checked rental
history...but, we have learned the hard way that rental history isn't
enough. I should tell you that The Spouse and I have been doing
rental management for over 20 years.
I submit one or two applications per month. Since August, I have had
the following turn up because of the credit checks:
1. an application from someone who was using an assumed name
2. Another applicant who "omitted" telling me about the
apartment where she had to be forcefully evicted. She had explained
away the open portion in the rental history she gave me...I believed
her explaination. Silly me!
Personally, I hate the idea that it is necessary to check someone's
credit. But, I had a judgement-proof tenant do $10K in damage to a
house in March. You can't rent a car without a credit card...and
houses are worth a great deal more than a car. I hate it, but I don't
see a way around it.
Judith Abbott
e-mail = jab...@iglobal.net
Joe - I wanna employ you - Agro
Can you share with me / us whom you use to get reliable credit reports?
I too am a multi-family homeownber and someday, my reliable and curteous
tennant is gonna move out. When that day comes, it's wiser to be
careful and nosey than it is to trust and lose lots... especially as a
newlywed and a father of a six month old child...
Larry Smith
Credit reports are a good tool for lenders, if only the credit reporting
companies can keep the info correct.
I am currently involved in a lawsuit against TRW and American Express for
putting false info on my credit report. This suit has been going on for
over 4 years now and the end is nowhere in sight. I did nothing wrong,
unless you consider having a very common name wrong, and yet I have had
years of aggravation from these bozos. This started when I went out to buy
a car, and was turned down for a loan based on a bad TRW report. I got a
copy of the report, and found that American Express had reported that I
had a written off balance of $7800! I have never had an American Express
card, and wrote both TRW and AMEX to tell them so. TRW removed the item
from my report, but AMEX reported the same info 3mos later. At this point
I sent certified mail to both AMEX and TRW ordering them to remove this
false information or face civil action. Again, TRW removed the item only
to have it pop right back up several months later. At this point my
attorney filed suit.
In discovery we have found that the person owing the AMEX bill is in
Ohio (I'm a resident of NV), has the same name as me, and a similar SS
number. AMEX uses an automated reporting system, and keeps reporting this
item to TRW, who though they have been warned, keeps listing it on my
credit report.
Both TRW and AMEX have filed numerous motions with the court to have the
case dismissed, or the venue changed, and all have been denied so far. We
expect to get a trial date sometime this summer.
Stay tuned for more info on how this comes out.
--
Just the facts ma'm.....
LAPD Sgt. Joe Friday
Facts? I don't need no stinkin' facts!
Rush Limbaugh
Darin & Tricia Neugebauer
I used to work in a credit bureau and there are Three primary agencies in
the credit reporting industry. The first is Trans Union. They no longer
have an 800 number but cann be contacted via snail mail at Transunion,
Consumer Relations,box 390,Springfield,PA 19064
The next is Equifax which has a website at http://www.equifax.com and Phone
# is 800-685-1111. If you have been denied credit based on their report
they will send a free copy to you otherwise it is about an $8 charge to get
a copy.
The last is TRW (now known as Experian Information Services) Their # is
800-392-1122 and their website is at http://www.experian.com/personal.html.
This agency will give out one free annual report (unless they changed
their practices since becoming experian)
You will more than likely be asked for name, address, former address, SSN,
and a photocopy of a utility bill, or ID (to prove identity).
Well that should be all of the info needed. Also, there are many companies
that are resellers of these reports it is very advisable to not go through
them (unless they combine all three into one) just to insure your own
safety. Work through these three.
Darin
Leigh R Hidell
Larry Smith <lsm...@pogonip.scs.unr.edu> wrote:
: I am currently involved in a lawsuit against TRW and American Express for
: putting false info on my credit report. This suit has been going on for
: over 4 years now and the end is nowhere in sight. I did nothing wrong,
Yeah, lawsuits in South Louisiana (Jeff Parish) can go on
a decade or more. Good luck!!!! I had to fire American
Express as a credit card a few years ago because they
sent me a bill for some lady in New Jersey. They didn't
even have the excuse that we have the same name!!!
Times are getting very scary w/ all this computerization,
esp. for people w/ common names. I have another friend
w/ a common name...in fact, the same common name given
as an example to use for rip-offs in STEAL THIS BOOK,
only it's his real name...& the cops showed up several
times w/ warrants thinking he was another guy who had
that same name....
--Leigh
Karl Pollak
lsm...@pogonip.scs.unr.edu (Larry Smith) wrote:
>a car, and was turned down for a loan based on a bad TRW report. I got a
>copy of the report, and found that American Express had reported that I
>had a written off balance of $7800! I have never had an American Express
>card, and wrote both TRW and AMEX to tell them so. TRW removed the item
>from my report, but AMEX reported the same info 3mos later. At this point
>I sent certified mail to both AMEX and TRW ordering them to remove this
>false information or face civil action. Again, TRW removed the item only
>to have it pop right back up several months later. At this point my
>attorney filed suit.
Larry, what you describe is a fairly common problem. You will find
that TRW will be taken off the suit because they have done nothing
wrong. As for Amex, they probably couldn't care less.
As you mention, the trouble is in automatic reporting. Almost nobody
reports manually nowadays. So while you get the Credit Bureau to
correct their records, which almost all of them do willingly and
promptly, the corrected information will be overwritten by the
creditor's next update in 2 or 3 months. The only way to avoid it is
for the creditor to correct their records, and good luck trying.
> Both TRW and AMEX have filed numerous motions with the court to have the
>case dismissed, or the venue changed, and all have been denied so far. We
>expect to get a trial date sometime this summer.
I just hope that you are not spending very much money on this. Up
here, you would have to show exactly what kind of damages you have
sustained because of the misreporting, otherwise you would only get
some token award like $1500-2000. If you had taken the case as far as
discoveries, I would expect you've already blown at least that much on
the case.
Something similar had happened to me as well, also with a long closed
credit card account. It was rather hilarious to see the wife of a
friend of mine turn me down for a loan because of the misreporting.
So I went to my credit union, got a cash loan and bought my car at a
different dealership at a better price. :-)
As for the credit bureau report, I couldn't care less. Let them
report whatever they want to. I have not lost anything because of it.
zeb
jeff...@sprintmail.com (Jeff Carpenter) wrote:
>What ever makes you feel better. YOUR lack of responsibility in your
>financial life has caused you not to be able to find a place to live.
>It has nothing to do with "the system."
What an asshole... must work for Equifax, TransUnion or Experian. Can
you say "Corruption"?. Good, then you are one step closer to
understanding the Credit Industry.
Jeff Carpenter
Actually, I don't work for anybody in the financial industry at all.
I am merely saying that there is exactly *ONE* reason that this person
can't get an apartment. *HE* screwed up and has poor credit. This is
NOT the problem of anyone but himself. The system works for millions
and millions of people everyday, yet when somebody screws up, it is
suddenly the systems fault?
Maybe you could explain how this situation is the credit industries
fault?
*************************************************
Visit "The Consulting Engineer's Resource"
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jeffcarp
*************************************************
Jeff Carpenter Des Moines, IA
*************************************************
XenoRaine
<<Actually, I don't work for anybody in the financial industry at all.
I am merely saying that there is exactly *ONE* reason that this person
can't get an apartment. *HE* screwed up and has poor credit. This is
NOT the problem of anyone but himself. The system works for millions
and millions of people everyday, yet when somebody screws up, it is
suddenly the systems fault?
Personal Example: TRW buys out Chilton a few years ago. TRW is
transferring Chilton's records over to their records. Now, logic would
say, that when you hit a personal credit report, you would transfer ALL of
the information at one time. Well that would be logical and we're
discussing TRW. NOoooooooo...TRW did a hit and miss routine for 2
years!!!! And yes I was informed by numerous "qualified" sources at TRW
that "that's just the way they do things."
So as a a result, I had two credit reports, for two years that were
incomplete or had erroneous information on them. TRW showed me having a
Nordstrom account that was delinquent. AT that time in life, there wasn't
a Nordstrom within a 500 miles of Dallas. YET, my Neiman-Marcus account
that was in stellar condition didn't show up at all. NM was on my Chilton
report. I had gasoline accounts that were not mine, loans (I've never
taken out a loan in my life), etc etc. I was livid, because my Chilton
report was stellar since I paid my bills on time. TRW totally screwed it
up with erroneous information for almost 2 years.
Now yes "the system" eventually worked it's happy ass out after I spent
numerous hours pointing out to them how completely screwed they were.
<<Maybe you could explain how this situation is the credit industries
fault?>>
MAYBE, YOU could explain how this situation is the personal consumers
fault???!!!!!!!
Reverend Tweek
Jeff Carpenter <jeff...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
>Actually, I don't work for anybody in the financial industry at all.
>I am merely saying that there is exactly *ONE* reason that this person
>can't get an apartment. *HE* screwed up and has poor credit. This is
>NOT the problem of anyone but himself. The system works for millions
>and millions of people everyday, yet when somebody screws up, it is
>suddenly the systems fault?
So your solution to rehabilitate him, is to club him back down to
the ground every time he tries to get back onto his feet?
--
Reverend Tweek Spiritual Advisor and Religious Liaison
DataBasix mailto: tw...@databasix.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Followups to Enoch and Cramer are deposited in alt.fan.kooks.mikael-enoch
John & Lisa Ayo
XenoRaine wrote:
> <<Maybe you could explain how this situation is the credit industries
> fault?>>
>
> MAYBE, YOU could explain how this situation is the personal consumers
> fault???!!!!!!!
>
> ~raine~
> **we all dream of the forbidden...but some of us make those dreams come true...**
However, the *original* poster who was complaining about the "system",
saying he couldn't get an apartment because of bad credit, admitted his
credit was bad because bills weren't always paid on time, not because of
some computer error on the credit report.
Lisa
Joe - I wanna employ you - Agro
TGOS100 wrote:
>
> jeff...@sprintmail.com wrote:
> >Actually, I don't work for anybody in the financial industry at all.
> >I am merely saying that there is exactly *ONE* reason that this person
> >can't get an apartment. *HE* screwed up and has poor credit. This is
> >NOT the problem of anyone but himself. The system works for millions
> >and millions of people everyday, yet when somebody screws up, it is
> >suddenly the systems fault?
>
> >fault?
>
> credit reports have faulty information, it may NOT be his fault.
>
> BTW, Jeff, the system is beginning to fray a bit at the edges. Credit card
> companies are issuing credit to virtually ANYONE who breathes. I know of
> one person who had a $48,000/year income and was issued $65,000 in credit
> cards. I also know of one bank who sent credit card applications to a
> non-exitant company with a non-existant vice pres.
>
> You obviously are VERY naive...
>
> Steve D
I'm not sure I would have used the wordnaive but... You are right. I
once (as a youth) had credit cards in alias names...
It was VERy easy to do.
I had names like:
Michael Jackson
Ihav E. Acar
etc...
Credit card companies just want to make money off of you. If you can't
pay your bill in full each month, that is all the better for them and
tehy know it.
Roger P Williams
In misc.consumers.frugal-living Reverend Tweek <tw...@netcom.com-NO.SPAM-> wrote:
: Jeff Carpenter <jeff...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
: >NOT the problem of anyone but himself. The system works for millions
: >and millions of people everyday, yet when somebody screws up, it is
: >suddenly the systems fault?
: So your solution to rehabilitate him, is to club him back down to
: the ground every time he tries to get back onto his feet?
These people aren't interested in rehabilitation. Most of them would
gladly line every poor person and lawbreaker in the country up against a
wall and shoot them if they thought this was necessary in order to
maintain their own cushy way of life.
Until, at least, they lose their own jobs or get caught breaking a law.
Besides, bullets cost money and starvation and exposure are cheaper
methods of eliminating people you don't like than other approaches.
This was one of the things discovered by those masters of frugal genocide,
the Nazis.
--Roger
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What will people of the future think of us? Will they say, as
Roger Williams said of some of the Massachusetts Indians, that
we were wolves with the minds of men? That we resigned our humanity?
They will have the right. -- C.P. Snow
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TGOS100
jeff...@sprintmail.com wrote:
>Actually, I don't work for anybody in the financial industry at all.
>I am merely saying that there is exactly *ONE* reason that this person
>can't get an apartment. *HE* screwed up and has poor credit. This is
>and millions of people everyday, yet when somebody screws up, it is
>suddenly the systems fault?
>Maybe you could explain how this situation is the credit industries
Jeff Carpenter
On Mon, 3 Mar 1997 04:25:43 GMT, tw...@netcom.com-NO.SPAM- (Reverend
Tweek) wrote:
>Jeff Carpenter <jeff...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Actually, I don't work for anybody in the financial industry at all.
>>I am merely saying that there is exactly *ONE* reason that this person
>>can't get an apartment. *HE* screwed up and has poor credit. This is
>>NOT the problem of anyone but himself. The system works for millions
>>and millions of people everyday, yet when somebody screws up, it is
>>suddenly the systems fault?
>
>So your solution to rehabilitate him, is to club him back down to
>the ground every time he tries to get back onto his feet?
Absolutely not. He deserves a second chance just like anybody would.
He won't get a lot a sympathy blaming his problems on the system
though. That isn't a very positive sign that he understands he wrongs
and how to correct them. The first thing he needs to do is understand
and acknowledge his mistakes instead of blaming them on other things.
the tree by the river
In article <19970304012...@ladder02.news.aol.com> tgo...@aol.com (TGOS100) writes:
>
>Considering that some audits of credit bureau reports state that 33-45% of
>credit reports have faulty information, it may NOT be his fault.
>
>BTW, Jeff, the system is beginning to fray a bit at the edges. Credit card
>companies are issuing credit to virtually ANYONE who breathes. I know of
>one person who had a $48,000/year income and was issued $65,000 in credit
>cards. I also know of one bank who sent credit card applications to a
>non-exitant company with a non-existant vice pres.
I must confess that I don't really understand these things; I spent years
trying to get credit cards (and was even turned down for "pre-approved"
offers I'd gotten in the mail); at the same time, my siblings who were
in college and unemployed were subjected to a constant deluge of offers.
When I finally did get a card, it was with the teeniest, weeniest credit
limit (a tiny fraction of what my siblings and other students I knew
were getting right off the bat) and after a year or two of faithfully
paying my balance in full on time each month, I requested an increased
credit limit and was turned down--even as the limits of the aforementioned
folks were automatically being increased.
Recently, I did get my limits increased and, curiously, now I get an
average of one to two pre-approved offers showing up in my mailbox per
day. Haven't tried applying for any of these--now that I've finally
gotten Discover to issue me a card, I don't have much need for more of
the little plastic things--I wonder if they've actually decided that
they like me now or are just hoping to tease me that much more....
(And then there's the whole mortgage thing; despite "pre-qualifying"
me (whatever that means) and assuring me that there would be
absolutely no problems whatsoever, we then went through the most
amazing period of their assuring me that it would be all approved
by that afternoon followed by the assurance each afternoon that it
would be taken care of in the morning until they missed the
deadline three times, with the result that I'd had to renegotiate
the contract (including giving up some of the things I'd previously
gotten from the seller, essentially costing me additional thousands
of dollars) and then, on the day of the multiply-rescheduled closing,
when the seller was about to tell me to bug off and stop wasting
everybody's time, they finally came through with the answer that,
despite every promise they'd made up to that point, they'd grudgingly
approve the loan--but only if I'd come up with the cash to put
one-third down by that afternoon (and, heck, back then it took five
days for stock sales and such to clear, so this was the sort of
requirement that could pose a problem). Talking to other folks
since, I've gotten the impression that this sort of insane behavior
on the part of a company that presumably is in the business of making
loans is fairly typical.)
--
Trygve Lode | 6529 Lakeside Circle, Littleton CO 80125 | (303) 470-1011
"A minor setback." -- Evil the Cat "" -- Marcel Marceau
Email for free copy of the Soc.singles FAQ
XenoRaine
<<I'm not sure I would have used the wordnaive but... You are right. I
once (as a youth) had credit cards in alias names...
It was VERy easy to do.
I had names like:
Michael Jackson
Ihav E. Acar
etc...
Credit card companies just want to make money off of you. If you can't
pay your bill in full each month, that is all the better for them and
tehy know it.
Joe>>
Joe you are very correct!!! I acquired a green AmEx card when I was 18.
My dad got a platinum AE when I was 19. Somehow AmEx made the connection
between he and I and I suddenly started receiving applications for gold.
(I guess they figured they were safe and my dad would bail me out if
something went awry). I filled out the first application...wanted name
and SS# and that was it I think...about 10 days later another one showed
up, I tossed it. About 10 days later a third application showed up and I
said "what the hell" and signed it. Within a couple days after that I
received a gold card and two weeks after that I received ANOTHER one.
Both with different account numbers, both accompanied by checkbooks with a
$2000 line of credit in both accounts. Within 15 months after that I had
green AE, green Optima AE, 2 gold AE, 2 gold Optima AE, Bergdorf-Goodman,
Neiman-Marcus, Lord & Taylor, Macy's, Bloomingdales, assortment of
gasoline cards, etc etc. I had something like $65,000 in available
credit. I'd make a $20 purchase every 6 months or so to keep the accounts
open. I was amazed by all of this. I finally got bored with the novelty
of it and closed most of the accounts. I only kept one of the gold cards,
primarily because I travel and I like that printout at the end of the year
with all the purchases broken down into categories for tax purposes.
Bill Funk
Jeff Carpenter wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Mar 1997 04:25:43 GMT, tw...@netcom.com-NO.SPAM- (Reverend
> Tweek) wrote:
>
> >Jeff Carpenter <jeff...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>Actually, I don't work for anybody in the financial industry at all.
> >>I am merely saying that there is exactly *ONE* reason that this person
> >>can't get an apartment. *HE* screwed up and has poor credit. This is
> >>NOT the problem of anyone but himself. The system works for millions
> >>and millions of people everyday, yet when somebody screws up, it is
> >>suddenly the systems fault?
> >
> >So your solution to rehabilitate him, is to club him back down to
> >the ground every time he tries to get back onto his feet?
>
> Absolutely not. He deserves a second chance just like anybody would.
> He won't get a lot a sympathy blaming his problems on the system
> though. That isn't a very positive sign that he understands he wrongs
> and how to correct them. The first thing he needs to do is understand
> and acknowledge his mistakes instead of blaming them on other things.
>
Actually, yes, he *will* get a lot of sympathy by blaming the system.
Just look at the responses you got here.
People like you and me are not politically correct. When we preach
personal responsibility, we receive liberal claptrap about being
unfeeling.
Have you noticed that there's no such thing as a person being an "object
lesson" anymore? Those who make poor choices are no longer allowed to
reap the results; they must be protected from themselves, at the expense
of those who work hard and choose rightly.
I remember when a schoolgirl got pregnant, she was pointed to by mothers
who told their daughters, "Do you want to end up loke THAT?"
Now, such girls get major spreads in the papers, and are praised for
their hard work by keeping the baby and finishing high school, all the
while whining (both the paper and the girl) that there aren't more
programs out there to help her.
Yes, I'm Rebublican, too!
Bill
Karl Pollak
xeno...@aol.com (XenoRaine) wrote:
>Credit card companies just want to make money off of you. If you can't
>pay your bill in full each month, that is all the better for them and
>tehy know it.
>Joe you are very correct!!!
Actually, he's not. Collections cost money. In fact, it is not so
long that Amex even started allowing you to carry your balance from
month to month. Until then the entire balance was payable in full
each month.
>I acquired a green AmEx card when I was 18.
>My dad got a platinum AE when I was 19. Somehow AmEx made the connection
>between he and I and I suddenly started receiving applications for gold.
>(I guess they figured they were safe and my dad would bail me out if
>something went awry).
If it is any consollation to you, I have been receiving those
applications about 3 times a year for quite sometime, till I started
to return them with a request to be taken off their database. I have
never had any dealings with Amex at all, nor have any of my relatives.
karen porter
In article <5ffl3p$7...@junkie.gnofn.org>, Roger P Williams
<rp...@gnofn.org> wrote:
> I
>
> : Jeff Carpenter <jeff...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> : >NOT the problem of anyone but himself. The system works for millions
> : >and millions of people everyday, yet when somebody screws up, it is
> : >suddenly the systems fault?
>
> : So your solution to rehabilitate him, is to club him back down to
> : the ground every time he tries to get back onto his feet?
>
> These people aren't interested in rehabilitation. Most of them would
> gladly line every poor person and lawbreaker in the country up against a
> wall and shoot them if they thought this was necessary in order to
> maintain their own cushy way of life.
>
> Until, at least, they lose their own jobs or get caught breaking a law.
>
> Besides, bullets cost money and starvation and exposure are cheaper
> methods of eliminating people you don't like than other approaches.
> This was one of the things discovered by those masters of frugal genocide,
> the Nazis.
>
> --Roger
>
>
what about people who have had their credit ruined by serious illness
and/or job loss? a person does not choose to get sick, and employers
downsize without rhyme or reason. not everyone who gets into trouble is
deadbeat!!!
TGOS100
Bill Funk <skyp...@starlink.com> wrote:
>Actually, yes, he *will* get a lot of sympathy by blaming the system.
>Just look at the responses you got here.
>People like you and me are not politically correct. When we preach
>personal responsibility, we receive liberal claptrap about being
>unfeeling.
I get the feeling that you really don't understand:
1) Credit Reporting Agencies Make Errors
In upwards of one third of the records that are stored in credit bureaus
there are factual errors. Such things as simple as incorrect employment to
out and out incorrect credit reporting. This is not a
liberal/conservative issue. This is a matter of accurate record keeping.
2) Shit Happens
Not everyone leads a charmed life. There are times when hard working
employed people run into bad circumstances. They loose their job, they
have high medical bills, they are hurt in an accident, their house is
destroyed in a disaster. All of these things can lead to black marks on
credit reports. All of these things are out of the person's control.
>Have you noticed that there's no such thing as a person being an "object
>lesson" anymore? Those who make poor choices are no longer allowed to
>reap the results; they must be protected from themselves, at the expense
>of those who work hard and choose rightly.
How about those who are laid off due to plant closings? Should we make an
example of them? Let's humiliate a husband whose wife just died of cancer
and whose insurance company won't pick up the tab (don't forget those
stockholders). Actually, let's make an object lesson out of everyone
whose house was destroyed by fire this year.
>I remember when a schoolgirl got pregnant, she was pointed to by mothers
>who told their daughters, "Do you want to end up loke THAT?"
>Now, such girls get major spreads in the papers, and are praised for
>their hard work by keeping the baby and finishing high school, all the
>while whining (both the paper and the girl) that there aren't more
>programs out there to help her.
Yup, loosing your job is the moral equivalent to out of wedlock pregnancy.
Compassion?, Compassion? We don't need no stinkin compassion!
>Yes, I'm Rebublican, too!
Maybe next time Rush will teach you how to spell it!
>Bill
Steve D
Jeff Carpenter
On 3 Mar 1997 22:59:05 GMT, Roger P Williams <rp...@gnofn.org> wrote:
>In misc.consumers.frugal-living Reverend Tweek <tw...@netcom.com-NO.SPAM-> wrote:
>
>: Jeff Carpenter <jeff...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>: >NOT the problem of anyone but himself. The system works for millions
>: >and millions of people everyday, yet when somebody screws up, it is
>: >suddenly the systems fault?
>
>: So your solution to rehabilitate him, is to club him back down to
>: the ground every time he tries to get back onto his feet?
>
>These people aren't interested in rehabilitation.
How do you categorize "these people." This is interesting that based
on one statement you have stereotyped me to a certain group of people.
>Most of them
Who is "them?" *I* made the statement, not "them."
>would
>gladly line every poor person and lawbreaker in the country up against a
>wall and shoot them if they thought this was necessary in order to
>maintain their own cushy way of life.
My statement made no mention of poor people or lawbreakers. It was a
simple statement about a single person with poor credit, blaming his
problems on the system.
>Until, at least, they lose their own jobs or get caught breaking a law.
Actually, a member of my immediate family was caught in a corporate
downsizing and is facing credit problems. He didn't blame the system.
He blames himself for USING the credit in the first place and having
no regard for saving for the future.
>Besides, bullets cost money and starvation and exposure are cheaper
>methods of eliminating people you don't like than other approaches.
>This was one of the things discovered by those masters of frugal genocide,
>the Nazis.
What a wacko.
Jeff Carpenter
>what about people who have had their credit ruined by serious illness
>and/or job loss? a person does not choose to get sick, and employers
>downsize without rhyme or reason. not everyone who gets into trouble is
>deadbeat!!!
Nor did I say they were. However, this is no fault of the credit
industry. Nobody forced you to use your credit cards.
Karl Pollak
tgo...@aol.com (TGOS100) wrote:
>1) Credit Reporting Agencies Make Errors
Yes, so does everybody else. However, all the Credit Reporting
Agencies do is to store the data provided them by their creditor
members. They do not go out to find the data themselves, nor do they
verify the data provided to them. All users of their reports are
given to undrestand that the data is only as good as the the reporting
is.
>In upwards of one third of the records that are stored in credit bureaus
>there are factual errors. Such things as simple as incorrect employment to
>out and out incorrect credit reporting.
True, but irrelevant. A sensible credit officer will only use the
report as a tool in his evaluation of the credit application. It may
provide a few pointers about the customer.
As for the employment, you should know that it will only show the
status as of the last inquiry. If you say on your credit application
that you work for IBM and the Credit Bureau says you work for Apple
Inc. it means nothing in terms of your credit worthiness. Especially
if you have given Apple as your previous employer. However, if you
had not, and your latest inquiries are say only 3-6 months old, I
would most certainly ask you about it before I issue the loan.
Especially if you had told me you've been working for IBM for 6 years.
>This is not a
>liberal/conservative issue. This is a matter of accurate record keeping.
So what are you suggesting as a solution? Should every employer
immediately report to the bureau every employee they hire?
>2) Shit Happens
>They loose their job, they
>have high medical bills, they are hurt in an accident, their house is
>destroyed in a disaster. All of these things can lead to black marks on
>credit reports.
Not so. At least not necessarily. It depends on the circumstances of
each individual and also on the skills of the loans officer. If you
lose your job, it is not a mark against your character, but it does
raise questions about the stability of your new job. That is assuming
that you actually have another job by the time you apply for more
credit.
As for an accident or your house being destroyed, the question is one
of financial responsibility and ability to foresee possible
misfortune. In other words "why did you not carry sufficient
insurance?"
>All of these things are out of the person's control.
Not always.
>How about those who are laid off due to plant closings? Should we make an
>example of them?
Don't know about your neck of the woods. But around here, in most
cases, especially in smaller towns that are facing the closure of a
major employer, the banks send in trouble shooters to negotiate with
the customers and in many instances with their unions arrangements
ahead of time to save the outstanding loans. The bank does not want
to lose half the town as their customers over something that is out of
the customers' control.
>Actually, let's make an object lesson out of everyone
>whose house was destroyed by fire this year.
Don't you folks have a fire insurance where you live?
Leigh R Hidell
: Nor did I say they were. However, this is no fault of the credit
: industry. Nobody forced you to use your credit cards.
Ever had cancer? Or any other serious illness? Yes,
friend, sometimes you ARE forced to use your credit
cards to ****ing eat!!! Think about it. The lower
middle class/middle class family that can't get
assistance can be hit by a disaster & be in a very
bad way very fast if the major wage earner becomes
seriously ill. Are you going to refuse to charge
food at the grocery store & let your kid starve because
you might not be able to pay a credit card company?
This happened to a family I know who had six
figures in medical insurance....the docs got it
ALL...& the family still had to eat!!! Yes, they
had to overcharge their credit cards, it's only
right to take care of themselves & worry about
some damn bank later.
I just hope you never get sick so you can live
forever in your little fantasy world. You are
so lucky to be able to hold these illusions.
--Leigh
peter nelson
karen porter wrote:
> what about people who have had their credit ruined by
> serious illness and/or job loss? a person does not
> choose to get sick, and employers downsize without
> rhyme or reason. not everyone who gets into trouble
> is deadbeat!!!
I think this is a rationalization. There may be
some rare combination of events that could result
in even a disciplined careful person getting into
credit or debt trouble but I think it would be
very uncommon indeed.
The vast majority of Americans who get into
debt trouble do so because of a combination
of undisciplined spending and poor money management.
If you can't afford something you shouldn't buy
it! In the 11 years my wife and I have been
married we've had zero consumer debt. We use
credit cards strictly for convenience and pay them
off in full every month. We save up and pay cash
for all major purchases, including cars (which
we drive into the ground). We live frugally
and save 31% of our gross income - this may come
in handy if we ever need it for financial
adversity or some other kind of rainy day.
The only debt of any kind we have is our mortgage
(a mortgage is not considered "consumer debt")
and even that is a fraction of the value of our
house and deliberately structured so we could pay
it on unemployement compensation if we had to.
Of course this means we live in a more modest house
that other people in our income range, but so
what?
I've never known anyone who got into credit card
trouble who wasn't trying to live beyond his means.
Credit cards are strictly for CONVENIENCE - they
should never be used to finance a purchase!
---peter
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
=======---Remove the ".foo" from my address before
=======---responding (anti-spam measure)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TGOS100
>Yes, so does everybody else. However, all the Credit Reporting Agencies
do is to store the >data provided them by their creditor members. They do
not go out to find the data >themselves, nor do they verify the data
provided to them. All users of their reports are
>given to undrestand that the data is only as good as the the reporting
is.
Maintaining a database is more than just collecting and filing data, Karl.
It involves insuring accuracy when matching records from different
companies. Where necessary, it involves accuracy of data entry. This
information isn't being given away. It's being sold for a hefty price.
People's ability to earn a living, get transportation and housing can
depend on whether these reports are accurate. From the mistakes that I've
heard about, it's not the information that's at fault, but rather that the
credit bureaus can't seem to file to save their lives.
>>In upwards of one third of the records that are stored in credit bureaus
>>there are factual errors. Such things as simple as incorrect employment
to
>>out and out incorrect credit reporting.
>True, but irrelevant. A sensible credit officer will only use the
>report as a tool in his evaluation of the credit application. It may
>provide a few pointers about the customer.
Not irrelevant Karl, very relevant. Look at it from a different point of
view. If you had to pay everytime you used the phone book knowing that
anywhere from one third to one half of that book was inaccurate. You
wouldn't pay. Why credit card companies, landlords, and employers trust a
database with such a high rate of inaccuracy is mind boggling. Many credit
card companies use a strict credit scoring method. Very little chance for
human intervention. I doubt that most landlords are trained in how to
properly read the reports same goes for Human Resources. The point is how
can anyone judge that the information is even accurate?
>As for the employment, you should know that it will only show the
>status as of the last inquiry.
Actually, it should be updated whenever fresh information is available. In
my case, the information was over 5 years old despite the fact that I had
applied for credit during that time. Any database where information is
stale is virtually useless.
>>This is not a
>>liberal/conservative issue. This is a matter of accurate record keeping.
This was actually a response to the other poster going off about welfare.
What I would suggest however, is that we be afforded more opportunities to
place information in our files. Since this information is about us, there
should be more freedom in correcting and verifying information.
>Not so. At least not necessarily. It depends on the circumstances of
>each individual and also on the skills of the loans officer. If you
>lose your job, it is not a mark against your character, but it does
>raise questions about the stability of your new job. That is assuming
>that you actually have another job by the time you apply for more
>credit.
Unfortunately, bad credit stays on for up to seven years. Some loan
officers get real picky. From what I've seen and heard, skills is not a
very good word. I think personality and temperment better fit.
>As for an accident or your house being destroyed, the question is one
>of financial responsibility and ability to foresee possible
>misfortune. In other words "why did you not carry sufficient
>insurance?"
Insurance is a funny thing. It's not all that cut and dried either. Some
insurance companies are well known for underpaying claims. You may THINK
you've got the insurance, then the claims adjuster comes and what your
opinion and their opinion of a settlement is not quite the same.
Steve D
Roger P Williams
In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff Carpenter <jeff...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
: What a wacko.
I'd say this settles pretty well the issue of who poured this mush into
your brain.
Amy Young-Leith
In article <5fmv9n$n...@junkie.gnofn.org>,
Leigh R Hidell <lr...@gnofn.org> wrote:
>Ever had cancer? Or any other serious illness? Yes,
>friend, sometimes you ARE forced to use your credit
>cards to ****ing eat!!! Think about it. The lower
>middle class/middle class family that can't get
>assistance can be hit by a disaster & be in a very
>bad way very fast if the major wage earner becomes
>seriously ill. Are you going to refuse to charge
>food at the grocery store & let your kid starve because
>you might not be able to pay a credit card company?
>This happened to a family I know who had six
>figures in medical insurance....the docs got it
>ALL...& the family still had to eat!!! Yes, they
>had to overcharge their credit cards, it's only
>right to take care of themselves & worry about
>some damn bank later.
>
>I just hope you never get sick so you can live
>forever in your little fantasy world. You are
>so lucky to be able to hold these illusions.
> --Leigh
Gee Leigh, bitter much?
Anyway the point still holds. If you CHOOSE to dance with the devil then
you have to pay his price. If you CHOOSE to use your credit cards,
regardless of what for, you have to pay the price. "Worrying about some
damn bank later" is quite irresponsible.
I'm not saying that experiencing a horrible illness isn't horrible, or
that many, MANY people would not be faced with one hell of a dilemma
financially. But if you chose to use the credit, you have to pay, and by
their terms, period.
amy
--
amy young-leith http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~alyoung
1986 Shadow VT1100 (Dmitri) *Speaking only for myself*
Computer Geek, Department of Psychology 855.5542
Phaedrus
>: Nor did I say they were. However, this is no fault of the credit
>: industry. Nobody forced you to use your credit cards.
>Ever had cancer? Or any other serious illness? Yes,
>friend, sometimes you ARE forced to use your credit
>cards to ****ing eat!!! Think about it.
(more examples of problems deleted)
Yes, these are very valid problems. But the solution to those problems
is to find some way (government, private charities, whatever) to help those
specific people who run into these sorts of problems. The solution to these
problems is _not_ to try to remove the negative consequences of having bad
credit.
--
\o\ If you're interested in books/stories with transformation themes, \o\
/o/ try <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/phaedrus/translist/translist.html>. /o/
\o\ New list entries always appreciated. FC1.21:FC(W/C)p6arw A- C->++ D>++ \o\
/o/ H+ M>+ P R T++++ W** Z+ Sm RLCT a cmn++++$ d e++ f+++ h- i++wf p-- sm# /o/
Michael Stegbauer
peter nelson wrote:
>
> karen porter wrote:
>
> > what about people who have had their credit ruined by
> > serious illness and/or job loss? a person does not
> > choose to get sick, and employers downsize without
> > rhyme or reason. not everyone who gets into trouble
> > is deadbeat!!!
>
> I think this is a rationalization. There may be
> some rare combination of events that could result
> in even a disciplined careful person getting into
> credit or debt trouble but I think it would be
> very uncommon indeed.
>
> The vast majority of Americans who get into
> debt trouble do so because of a combination
> of undisciplined spending and poor money management.
>
> I've never known anyone who got into credit card
> trouble who wasn't trying to live beyond his means.
> Credit cards are strictly for CONVENIENCE - they
> should never be used to finance a purchase!
>
> ---peter
Well Peter, clearly you and your wife are not doing
your part to support the economy. Where would all the
banks be if we didn't let them give us all high interest
revolving loans? Just think of the ATM fees they would
have to charge just to make a fair profit if we didn't
give them 20% interest on inpulse purchases.
Seriously, you are absolutely right. It's like the
weight loss thing. Most overweight folk don't have a
medical condition, they simply don't have the desire,
or will power to lose the weight. Some small percentage
of folks do have a real medical reason, just like some
folk simply get really unlucky and get into debt. The
other 99% have no one to blame but themselves (and
maybe their parents).
Now we see the excessive pushing of prescription weight
loss drugs on the general public. Soon, some banking
executive will have the idea of a credit card which
automatically takes a percentage of your wages based
on the debt level, the idea being that the card will
automatically pay itself off. This will not work
anymore than the weight loss drugs, but people will
buy into these forms of artificial will power anyhow.
Let me just note that I don't even remember the original
poster's story, so this is not an observation on him/her.
Karl Pollak
Leigh R Hidell <lr...@gnofn.org> wrote:
>Ever had cancer? Or any other serious illness? Yes,
>friend, sometimes you ARE forced to use your credit
>cards to ****ing eat!!! Think about it.
You mean to say that if somethig like that happened to you and you
didn't happen to have a credit card, you would be perfectly justified
robbing a bank because you wan to eat?
Because if you ar drawing on your credit card, knowing that you have
no way of paying the money back, you are robbing the bank. Plain and
simple.
>Yes, they had to overcharge their credit cards, it's only
>right to take care of themselves & worry about some damn bank later.
I'm sorry, I did not realize that taking somebody else's money is now
called "taking care of yourself". In my vocabulary it is still called
STEALING.
Gregor
On 7 Mar 1997 16:17:50 GMT, aly...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Amy Young-Leith) wrote:
>In article <5fmv9n$n...@junkie.gnofn.org>,
>Leigh R Hidell <lr...@gnofn.org> wrote:
>>Ever had cancer? Or any other serious illness? Yes,
>>friend, sometimes you ARE forced to use your credit
>>cards to ****ing eat!!! Think about it. The lower
>>middle class/middle class family that can't get
>>assistance can be hit by a disaster & be in a very
>>bad way very fast if the major wage earner becomes
>>seriously ill. Are you going to refuse to charge
>>food at the grocery store & let your kid starve because
>>you might not be able to pay a credit card company?
>>This happened to a family I know who had six
>>figures in medical insurance....the docs got it
>>ALL...& the family still had to eat!!! Yes, they
>>had to overcharge their credit cards, it's only
>>right to take care of themselves & worry about
>>some damn bank later.
>>
>>I just hope you never get sick so you can live
>>forever in your little fantasy world. You are
>>so lucky to be able to hold these illusions.
>> --Leigh
>
>Gee Leigh, bitter much?
>
>Anyway the point still holds. If you CHOOSE to dance with the devil then
>you have to pay his price. If you CHOOSE to use your credit cards,
>regardless of what for, you have to pay the price. "Worrying about some
>damn bank later" is quite irresponsible.
Amy, until you have had to face the kind of choice that Leigh describes,
it might be best to reserve judgment on your fellow man.
>I'm not saying that experiencing a horrible illness isn't horrible, or
>that many, MANY people would not be faced with one hell of a dilemma
>financially. But if you chose to use the credit, you have to pay, and by
>their terms, period.
Personally, I would max out ALL my credit cards before I let a family member DIE
I think any other response would be *REALLY* irresponsible.
YMMV
Gregor
Jeff Carpenter
On 6 Mar 1997 17:35:51 GMT, Leigh R Hidell <lr...@gnofn.org> wrote:
>: Nor did I say they were. However, this is no fault of the credit
>: industry. Nobody forced you to use your credit cards.
>
>Ever had cancer? Or any other serious illness? Yes,
>friend, sometimes you ARE forced to use your credit
>cards to ****ing eat!!! Think about it.
Give me a break, Of COURSE there are times of extenuating
circumstances, but these cases make up such a small percentage of the
people that are in debt trouble that it isn't even worth talking
about. The person that started this thread CLEARLY was not
experiencing any of these extenuating circumstances.
>The lower
>middle class/middle class family that can't get
>assistance can be hit by a disaster & be in a very
>bad way very fast if the major wage earner becomes
>seriously ill.
I agree. Again, this is not what was being discussed here.
>Are you going to refuse to charge
>food at the grocery store & let your kid starve because
>you might not be able to pay a credit card company?
No.
>This happened to a family I know who had six
>figures in medical insurance....the docs got it
>ALL...& the family still had to eat!!! Yes, they
>had to overcharge their credit cards, it's only
>right to take care of themselves & worry about
>some damn bank later.
I am sorry for the experiences of the family you know. I was not
referring to that type of situation at all.
>I just hope you never get sick so you can live
>forever in your little fantasy world. You are
>so lucky to be able to hold these illusions.
Again, there are extenuating circumstances in all situations in life.
This is one of them.
Jeff Carpenter
On 7 Mar 1997 01:02:04 GMT, Roger P Williams <rp...@gnofn.org> wrote:
>In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff Carpenter <jeff...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>: What a wacko.
>
>I'd say this settles pretty well the issue of who poured this mush into
>your brain.
Hey Roger, why don't you respond to the ISSUES raised in the post
instead of cutting them out and only responding to the one slam that
was in there?
In case you forgot, the points I raised to you (which you failed to
answer) are this:
>These people aren't interested in rehabilitation.
How do you categorize "these people." This is interesting that based
on one statement you have stereotyped me to a certain group of people.
>Most of them
Who is "them?" *I* made the statement, not "them."
>would
>gladly line every poor person and lawbreaker in the country up against a
>wall and shoot them if they thought this was necessary in order to
>maintain their own cushy way of life.
My statement made no mention of poor people or lawbreakers. It was a
simple statement about a single person with poor credit, blaming his
problems on the system.
>Until, at least, they lose their own jobs or get caught breaking a law.
Actually, a member of my immediate family was caught in a corporate
downsizing and is facing credit problems. He didn't blame the system.
He blames himself for USING the credit in the first place and having
no regard for saving for the future.
>Besides, bullets cost money and starvation and exposure are cheaper
>methods of eliminating people you don't like than other approaches.
>This was one of the things discovered by those masters of frugal genocide,
>the Nazis.
What a wacko.
Now, try responding to the issues YOU raised,
Leigh R Hidell
: Again, there are extenuating circumstances in all situations in life.
: This is one of them.
Thanx. I appreciate your acknowledging that....I honestly don't
recall what caused the original poster's problems. But I do
know that the Number One cause of personal bankruptcy in the U.S.
is medical bills. It is a common enough problem that I felt
I had to mention it. --Leigh
Roger P Williams
In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff Carpenter <jeff...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
: Hey Roger, why don't you respond to the ISSUES raised in the post
: instead of cutting them out and only responding to the one slam that
: was in there?
Because there isn't any point. As I discovered in the course of a long
and pointless email argument with Gene about homosexuality, these
arguments end up running in tight little circles around the meaning of
words rather than "facing the issues."
: How do you categorize "these people." This is interesting that based
: on one statement you have stereotyped me to a certain group of people.
"These people" are those who subscribe to a particular set of axioms. It
has been my experience that when you find someone who holds /any/ of these
axioms, he tends to hold /most or all/ of them:
1. Most or all rich people got that way by hard work and deserve the
wealth and privileges they have.
2. Most poor people got that way by being lazy or uncreative and deserve
the difficulties they face.
3. There is no such thing as a right to a minimum standard of living.
Those who are not willing to work should be left to the mercies of those
(who in turn are held in some measure of contempt because of their
softness) who will voluntarily help such slackers.
4. Anybody who wants work badly enough can find it.
5. Criminals should be dealt with harshly no matter what their
circumstances, since axioms 2 and 4 imply that crime is never a "last
resort."
Except for #5, you have, in various posts, expressed each of these
principles yourself. Since everyone I know who holds axioms 2 and 4 also
holds axiom 5 -- I would call it a "lemma" -- it was natural to assume you
would hold it too. It is interesting that you have not /denied/ holding
it, you have only protested the assumption.
: Who is "them?" *I* made the statement, not "them."
If you agree with most or all of the above statements, you are one of
"them." About half the people I know are among "them."
: Actually, a member of my immediate family was caught in a corporate
: downsizing and is facing credit problems. He didn't blame the system.
: He blames himself for USING the credit in the first place and having
: no regard for saving for the future.
This is very typical of people who have swallowed this worldview lock,
stock, & barrel. Blaming the victim is bad enough IMHO, but blaming
/yourself/ when /you/ are the victim is truly pitiful.
Amy Young-Leith
In article <3321f32d...@news.ntrnet.net>,
Gregor <gre...@spamless.mailbox> wrote:
>Amy, until you have had to face the kind of choice that Leigh describes,
>it might be best to reserve judgment on your fellow man.
I'm not "passing judgement." I'm in no position to judge her; my
opinions, which I've aired here, have no affect on her life on their own.
>Personally, I would max out ALL my credit cards before I let a family member DIE
>I think any other response would be *REALLY* irresponsible.
And all I'm saying is that if you CHOOSE to use the credit, then you can't
bitch about the horrible terms AFTER you've gotten the money from them.
THAT'S all I'm saying. I'm not saying using credit to pay medical bills
is in any way irresponsible.
Keith R. Williams
Roger P Williams wrote:
>
> In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff Carpenter <jeff...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Hey Roger, why don't you respond to the ISSUES raised in the post
> : instead of cutting them out and only responding to the one slam that
> : was in there?
>
> Because there isn't any point. As I discovered in the course of a long
> and pointless email argument with Gene about homosexuality, these
> arguments end up running in tight little circles around the meaning of
> words rather than "facing the issues."
...pointless, because you may not be listening? Common flaw.
>
> : How do you categorize "these people." This is interesting that based
> : on one statement you have stereotyped me to a certain group of people.
>
> "These people" are those who subscribe to a particular set of axioms. It
> has been my experience that when you find someone who holds /any/ of these
> axioms, he tends to hold /most or all/ of them:
>
> 1. Most or all rich people got that way by hard work and deserve the
> wealth and privileges they have.
This has been proven many times over. Look at the statistics and the
"new" rich exceed the "old" rich by a large majority.
> 2. Most poor people got that way by being lazy or uncreative and deserve
> the difficulties they face.
No they are not "driven" to success. They blame others for their
failures. They also think they are "owed" something for the accident
of birth. Yes, they are owed something, but by they're parentS, not
strangers.
>
> 3. There is no such thing as a right to a minimum standard of living.
> Those who are not willing to work should be left to the mercies of those
> (who in turn are held in some measure of contempt because of their
> softness) who will voluntarily help such slackers.
Absolutely right. There is no such "right". "Mercies", please! All
of
us can take charge of our lives and do better. Those that do are
rewarded.
Those that don't, leach off those that do. It is that simple!
>
> 4. Anybody who wants work badly enough can find it.
Fact! Maybe not the job that they want, where they want, or on the
schedule they want, but the jobs are there. One must have the social
skills that make one employable, however. The number one complaint
of employers is reliability. This is a simple thing to master - if
you have a job, be there!
>
> 5. Criminals should be dealt with harshly no matter what their
> circumstances, since axioms 2 and 4 imply that crime is never a "last
> resort."
Criminals *should* be treated harshly! They destroy society and add
nothing. '2' and '4' are not excuses. BTW, the courts do take
circumstances into account. I'm not sure how one excused murder,
rape, or crack dealing, however. BTW, these are largely crimes
against the "lower" class, by the "lower" class.
>
> Except for #5, you have, in various posts, expressed each of these
> principles yourself. Since everyone I know who holds axioms 2 and 4 also
> holds axiom 5 -- I would call it a "lemma" -- it was natural to assume you
> would hold it too. It is interesting that you have not /denied/ holding
> it, you have only protested the assumption.
Society exists for the benefit of the individual. It has now broken
down
to existing for the benefit of classes. This is counter-productive
and
wrong!
>
> : Who is "them?" *I* made the statement, not "them."
>
> If you agree with most or all of the above statements, you are one of
> "them." About half the people I know are among "them."
Ok, I'm also one of "them". You are one of "those", if you must. You
are obviously a socialist. I suspect worse, but I suspect you
won't even admit to being a socialist.
>
> : Actually, a member of my immediate family was caught in a corporate
> : downsizing and is facing credit problems. He didn't blame the system.
> : He blames himself for USING the credit in the first place and having
> : no regard for saving for the future.
>
> This is very typical of people who have swallowed this worldview lock,
> stock, & barrel. Blaming the victim is bad enough IMHO, but blaming
> /yourself/ when /you/ are the victim is truly pitiful.
I'm a victim too. Can I get in on a teat here? Please! Grow up and
*do* something with you life, other than whine!
----
Keith R. Williams
k...@ibm.net
Jeff Carpenter
On 9 Mar 1997 13:39:57 GMT, Roger P Williams <rp...@gnofn.org> wrote:
>In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff Carpenter <jeff...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
>: Hey Roger, why don't you respond to the ISSUES raised in the post
>: instead of cutting them out and only responding to the one slam that
>: was in there?
>
>Because there isn't any point. As I discovered in the course of a long
>and pointless email argument with Gene about homosexuality, these
>arguments end up running in tight little circles around the meaning of
>words rather than "facing the issues."
I am not "Gene" and this discussion is not about homosexuality. If
you don't want to have a discussion, then don't respond to the post.
Posting a rather pointed response and then running is cowardly.
>: How do you categorize "these people." This is interesting that based
>: on one statement you have stereotyped me to a certain group of people.
>
>"These people" are those who subscribe to a particular set of axioms. It
>has been my experience that when you find someone who holds /any/ of these
>axioms, he tends to hold /most or all/ of them:
>
>1. Most or all rich people got that way by hard work and deserve the
>wealth and privileges they have.
You inferred that I feel this way. Nowhere did I ever mention
anything close to this. I am not rich. Most of the rich people I
know either inherited it, or built companies from scratch.
>2. Most poor people got that way by being lazy or uncreative and deserve
>the difficulties they face.
Again, you inferred that I feel this way. Nowhere did I ever mention
anything close to this.
>3. There is no such thing as a right to a minimum standard of living.
>Those who are not willing to work should be left to the mercies of those
>(who in turn are held in some measure of contempt because of their
>softness) who will voluntarily help such slackers.
This is nuts. Once again, I mentioned NOTHING even close to this.
>4. Anybody who wants work badly enough can find it.
TRUE.
>5. Criminals should be dealt with harshly no matter what their
>circumstances, since axioms 2 and 4 imply that crime is never a "last
>resort."
And not to repeat myself but I never said anything close to this
either.
>Except for #5, you have, in various posts, expressed each of these
>principles yourself.
Wrong. You have inferred this based on comments that I have posted.
If you are going to accuse me of this, then I would expect you will be
able to provide quotes of what I said which clearly illustrate my
views and how I believe the axioms above.
>Since everyone I know who holds axioms 2 and 4 also
>holds axiom 5 -- I would call it a "lemma" -- it was natural to assume you
>would hold it too. It is interesting that you have not /denied/ holding
>it, you have only protested the assumption.
Holding what? This thread was about a credit problem. I am not
interested in theorizing this to some hidden meaning.
>: Who is "them?" *I* made the statement, not "them."
>
>If you agree with most or all of the above statements, you are one of
>"them." About half the people I know are among "them."
I don't agree with ANY of the above statements (except #4). This
thread was about a specific credit problem, NOTHING more. If you are
looking for an example of a certain "mindset" you are in the wrong
place.
>: Actually, a member of my immediate family was caught in a corporate
>: downsizing and is facing credit problems. He didn't blame the system.
>: He blames himself for USING the credit in the first place and having
>: no regard for saving for the future.
>
>This is very typical of people who have swallowed this worldview lock,
>stock, & barrel. Blaming the victim is bad enough IMHO, but blaming
>/yourself/ when /you/ are the victim is truly pitiful.
Have you ever heard of taking personal responsibility for your own
actions? If you find this "pitiful" then you finding it OK to blame
the system makes sense.
Darren Meahl
Michael Stegbauer <stegbau...@tandem.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Seriously, you are absolutely right. It's like the
>weight loss thing. Most overweight folk don't have a
>medical condition, they simply don't have the desire,
>or will power to lose the weight. Some small percentage
>of folks do have a real medical reason, just like some
>folk simply get really unlucky and get into debt. The
>other 99% have no one to blame but themselves (and
>maybe their parents).
Before you get that foot too far down your throat, perhaps you should
read up a little on current research into being fat. First, the major
reason people are fat is that they have yo-yo dieted themselves into a
state in which their metabolism doesn't burn calories optimally. I
will grant that most people do not have this condition initially, but,
given that this society is obsessed with abnormal thinness (witness
the popularity of Kate Moss and the resultant meteoric rise in eating
disorders in adolescents), anyone who isn't built like Kate Moss is
pressured to diet from a very young age. Once you go on a severely
calorie-restricted diet, you fool your body into thinking it is in a
famine condition. Your metabolism slows down. You lose fat AND lean
muscle mass. When you resume normal eating, you gain all that you
lost and more in the form of fat, as your body prepares for the next
famine. (Fat is the _most_ efficient form of long-term energy storage
the body has.) Several rounds of this leaves the person fatter than
ever, and no closer to being able to be slim.
ALL diets have a 95-98% FAILURE rate. Isn't it about time we stopped
blaming the dieter and started blaming the diet?
Darren
me...@pilot.msu.edu
http://pilot.msu.edu/user/meahl/
Unsolicited Email of a commercial nature delivered to this
address is subject to a $500 charge. Emailing such items,
whether automatically or manually, constitutes acceptance
of and agreement to this charge.
Gene Gurevich
On 9 Mar 1997, Roger P Williams wrote:
> In misc.consumers.frugal-living Jeff Carpenter <jeff...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Hey Roger, why don't you respond to the ISSUES raised in the post
> : instead of cutting them out and only responding to the one slam that
> : was in there?
>
> Because there isn't any point. As I discovered in the course of a long
> and pointless email argument with Gene about homosexuality, these
> arguments end up running in tight little circles around the meaning of
> words rather than "facing the issues."
Roger, of all people you should know that the reason our discussion ended
up in these "little circles" is that you have been paying more attention
to my politically incorrect vocabulary then to my arguments. Instead of
arguing, you were searching for every single politically incorrect term
I used (and sure enough I do use a lot of them). As long as you
keep doing this, any discussion with you will be pointless to a certain
degree. I do not consider it to be a total loss though because I learned
that you did not have any arguments (besides name-calling) to support your
point of view.
****************************************************************************
* *
* In case of nuclear war, ignore this message *
* *
****************************************************************************
Annette C. Hollmann
In article <5fq58l$9...@thoth.portal.ca> kpo...@nospam.com (Karl Pollak) writes:
>Leigh R Hidell <lr...@gnofn.org> wrote:
>
>>Ever had cancer? Or any other serious illness? Yes,
>>friend, sometimes you ARE forced to use your credit
>>cards to ****ing eat!!! Think about it.
>
>didn't happen to have a credit card, you would be perfectly justified
>robbing a bank because you wan to eat?
>
>Because if you ar drawing on your credit card, knowing that you have
>no way of paying the money back, you are robbing the bank. Plain and
>simple.
If someone gets laid off and runs up their credit cards to buy food, they
are not robbing the bank. The bank will be repaid (and make a very tidy
profit) when that person gets another job. Sure ,there is the risk that
the person could suddenly die before repaying the debt - but the bank
takes that chance as a calculated investment risk.
Of course, it's best to save up for emergencies so you don't have to go
into debt
BUT show me a budget how you can do this on a minimum wage job, no
overtime allowed (you're lucky if you get 40 hours a week), and no
friend/relatives to stay with. According to my calculations, it would only
be possible to save up about $1000 per year for a single person on minimum
wage.
Annette
SierraSunset
The other one is divorce.
And it's not always "choosing to use credit cards" Ihave plenty of
friends who have no credit rating because they've never gotten credit
cards.
Also, with catastrophic illness or divorce,t here's the very real
spectre of mounting bills due to simple things like...having a phone.
Car insurance. Electricity, water and heat.
This attitude of "you have a bad credit rating because you're an evil
person and it's all your own fault" is crap for people who have tried
their hardest,w hether to work in the face of illness (as did my
mother during her battle with colon ccancer) or at a marriage when
the other partner failed.
Karl Pollak
fa...@nospam.nospsam (Darren Meahl) wrote:
>Before you get that foot too far down your throat, perhaps you should
>read up a little on current research into being fat. First, the major
>reason people are fat is that they have yo-yo dieted themselves into a
>state in which their metabolism doesn't burn calories optimally.
While what you are saying about diets and dicking around with one's
metabolism is bang on, there is one piece of information missing here.
According to the news that came out only a couple of weeks ago,
researchers have recently identified a gene which apparently controls
the metabolic rate. That would suggest that one's thinness, or lack
thereof, is genetically determined.
Of course, the race to synthesize the chemical trigger is no doubt
already on. It would be my hope that it be only administered under
strict medical supervision. I can already see legions of super-thin
goofs running in overdrive at 8000 rpm and killing themselves with
this stuff.
Karl Pollak
ah69...@bcm.tmc.edu (Annette C. Hollmann) wrote:
>If someone gets laid off and runs up their credit cards to buy food, they
>are not robbing the bank. The bank will be repaid (and make a very tidy
>profit) when that person gets another job.
Maybe yes, maybe no. And maybe that person doesn't get another job.
You can't bank on the future. Either way, it makes no difference. To
obtain credit when you have no conceivable means to repay it, is just
fraud. Plain and simple.
>Sure ,there is the risk that
>the person could suddenly die before repaying the debt - but the bank
>takes that chance as a calculated investment risk.
The bank takes a calculated risk when it is approving your
application, which is based on the information at hand at the time.
When the circumstances change, they have to rely on the alleged
honesty of the credit card holder.
>Of course, it's best to save up for emergencies so you don't have to go
>into debt
>BUT show me a budget how you can do this on a minimum wage job, no
>overtime allowed (you're lucky if you get 40 hours a week), and no
>friend/relatives to stay with.
If you only make minimum wage, DON'T GET A CREDIT CARD !! You can't
afford any debt.
Annette C. Hollmann
In article <5g2gue$j...@thoth.portal.ca> kpo...@nospam.com (Karl Pollak) writes:
>
>If you only make minimum wage, DON'T GET A CREDIT CARD !! You can't
>afford any debt.
Used responsibly, a no-fee credit card makes no difference.
I do have a credit card, which gets paid off every month.
I just use it because it is easier, safer, and cheaper than using cash.
I can't get to the bank, and the ATM fees are too high.
The amount of food I eat doesn't depend on how I pay my bill.
It was medical bills which got me into trouble (yes, I did have
insurance). The point is, if you don't make very much money, accidents can
and will throw you for a financial loop.
My current health insurance has a 7500 out of pocket maximum, and it took
me 8 months to obtain permission from my employer to buy my own insurance
(it was set up by the employer to make it illegal for me to buy my own
health insurance, and I had to fight them on this for a very long time).
Annette.
T AC
Karl Pollak <kpo...@nospam.com> billowed in article <5g2gue$j...@thoth.portal.ca>...
> ah69...@bcm.tmc.edu (Annette C. Hollmann) wrote:
>
> >If someone gets laid off and runs up their credit cards to buy food, they
> >are not robbing the bank. The bank will be repaid (and make a very tidy
> >profit) when that person gets another job.
>
> Maybe yes, maybe no. And maybe that person doesn't get another job.
> You can't bank on the future. Either way, it makes no difference. To
> obtain credit when you have no conceivable means to repay it, is just
> fraud. Plain and simple.
>
> >Sure ,there is the risk that
> >the person could suddenly die before repaying the debt - but the bank
> >takes that chance as a calculated investment risk.
>
> The bank takes a calculated risk when it is approving your
> application, which is based on the information at hand at the time.
> When the circumstances change, they have to rely on the alleged
> honesty of the credit card holder.
>
> >Of course, it's best to save up for emergencies so you don't have to go
> >into debt
> >BUT show me a budget how you can do this on a minimum wage job, no
> >overtime allowed (you're lucky if you get 40 hours a week), and no
> >friend/relatives to stay with.
>
> afford any debt.
>
> Karl Pollak
> [Respond in this newsgroup only. Send _no_ e-mail]
>
Karl, the bank DEFINITELY does allot of "calculating" when they issue a credit card.
ANY bad debt gets written off as bad debt, and is used to avoid paying taxes on profits.
I fail to see any "risk". They make $billions, and stick the taxpayers with any adverse
consequences of their "calculations".
For example: (from another thread in this ng, and their own web page)
New York, January 21, 1997 -- The Chase Manhattan
Corporation today reported that net income for the full year, before
merger-related restructuring costs, rose 20 percent to $3.586 billion
from $2.979 billion. Primary earnings per share for the year rose to
$7.54 per share from $6.25 and fully diluted earnings per share rose
22 percent to $7.43 from $6.09 in 1995.
> You can't bank on the future. Either way, it makes no difference. To
> obtain credit when you have no conceivable means to repay it, is just
> fraud. Plain and simple.
Yes, and I think you'd also AGREE that to OFFER credit to someone with little or no
conceivable means to repay it, "is just fraud" too. Just as "plain" and just as
"simple". Specifically, when credit is "OFFERED" to the consumer without FULL disclosure
of the terms.
Sometime consumers are offered credit under 10% APR and, after a couple (or even ONE)
late payment(s), above-and-beyond penalty-fees, they are subjected to "PENALTY-RATES" as
high as 32% APR in some cases!
Obviously there can be no good results from THAT. With the case described above (hard
work, low income) a condition could arise, such as "car problems", where the car is
employment transportation, causing a "need" for credit USE. What are the alternatives?
Loose the job? Go on welfare? Declare bankruptcy? If a consumer like this (hard work,
low income) can be extorted by a sudden, previously undisclosed or undefined change in
the terms of their credit, how can that help anything. It would seem to only disrupt the
system at the profit of a small group.
Honest, and open credit MAY avert some of the predictable consequences that can result
from usurious credit practices which, I REPEAT, either profit a small group, OR become
the taxpayer's expense ie: write-offs, bankruptcy-to-welfare.. etc.
T AC
peter nelson
Leigh R Hidell wrote:
> Thanx. I appreciate your acknowledging that....I honestly don't
> recall what caused the original poster's problems. But I do
> know that the Number One cause of personal bankruptcy in the U.S.
> is medical bills. It is a common enough problem that I felt
> I had to mention it. --Leigh
What's your source for this statistic? And what
do you mean by "number one"? A majority? Or
the most common on a large list of items where
the % of the cost common items is still single digits?
---peter
peter nelson
Darren Meahl wrote:
> ALL diets have a 95-98% FAILURE rate. Isn't it
> about time we stopped blaming the dieter and started
> blaming the diet?
Dieting is stupid. A little common sense in eating
(minimize excessive lipid intake, eat lots of fruit
and vegetables, etc) is a LOT easier to maintain
than a diet with rigid rules and denied pleasure.
Combine that with lots of regular physical activity
and realistic body self-images and few people would
have any weight problems.
If you eat more calories than you burn you will
gain weight. One solution is to eat fewer calories.
The other is to burn more through exercise or other
activities which burn calories and build muscle mass
(muscle being more metabolically active).
It makes no sense to "blame" a diet, since a diet
has no volition - "blame" can only be assigned to
something which can make a choice. A dieter can
make a choice; a diet can't. So yes, I blame the
dieter for dieting in the first place, for being
sedentary, for basing their goals on unrealistic
and stupid fashion model images, and for not
understanding the basics of healthy eating.
---peter
Jeff Carpenter
On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 15:45:53 -0500, T AC <TA...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
>Karl, the bank DEFINITELY does allot of "calculating" when they issue a credit card.
>ANY bad debt gets written off as bad debt, and is used to avoid paying taxes on profits.
>I fail to see any "risk". They make $billions, and stick the taxpayers with any adverse
>consequences of their "calculations".
A tax write-off is not a dollar for dollar proposition. How exactly
do taxpayers get stuck with "adverse consequences" of a bank writing
off bad debts?
>Yes, and I think you'd also AGREE that to OFFER credit to someone with little or no
>conceivable means to repay it, "is just fraud" too. Just as "plain" and just as
>"simple". Specifically, when credit is "OFFERED" to the consumer without FULL disclosure
>of the terms.
Banks have limited financial information about you when they "offer"
you a credit card.
>Sometime consumers are offered credit under 10% APR and, after a couple (or even ONE)
>late payment(s), above-and-beyond penalty-fees, they are subjected to "PENALTY-RATES" as
>high as 32% APR in some cases!
These terms are clearly spelled out on any credit application I have
ever seen.
T AC
Jeff Carpenter <jeff...@sprintmail.com> wrote in article
<332d25e6...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>...
> On Tue, 11 Mar 1997 15:45:53 -0500, T AC <TA...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Karl, the bank DEFINITELY does allot of "calculating" when they issue a credit card.
> >ANY bad debt gets written off as bad debt, and is used to avoid paying taxes on profits.
> >I fail to see any "risk". They make $billions, and stick the taxpayers with any adverse
> >consequences of their "calculations".
>
> A tax write-off is not a dollar for dollar proposition. How exactly
> do taxpayers get stuck with "adverse consequences" of a bank writing
> off bad debts?
>
Because they AVOID PAYING TAXES by applying the bad debt against their profits. I am not
sure that it's NOT a dollar-for-dollar arrangement, but I am CERTAIN that it works in
that manner.
> >Yes, and I think you'd also AGREE that to OFFER credit to someone with little or no
> >conceivable means to repay it, "is just fraud" too. Just as "plain" and just as
> >"simple". Specifically, when credit is "OFFERED" to the consumer without FULL disclosure
> >of the terms.
>
> Banks have limited financial information about you when they "offer"
> you a credit card.
> >Sometime consumers are offered credit under 10% APR and, after a couple (or even ONE)
> >late payment(s), above-and-beyond penalty-fees, they are subjected to "PENALTY-RATES" as
> >high as 32% APR in some cases!
>
> These terms are clearly spelled out on any credit application I have
> ever seen.
>
>
> *************************************************
> Visit "The Consulting Engineer's Resource"
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jeffcarp
> *************************************************
> Jeff Carpenter Des Moines, IA
> *************************************************
Jeff, if you have one of those applications handy, please relate the bank name, if there
is any information regarding "PENALTY-RATES", max number of late payments,
good-standing, etc. on or with the application.
In the thread "Chase Manhattan Bank >= Loan Shark" one poster (who declined Chase's
offer) related that with the contract proposal they mailed to him there was a mention
of "good-standing" without any definition of good-standing. Apparently, that information
is made available AFTER (maybe?) they sign and submit their application: AFTER Chase
does a credit check (+1 inquiry and a whole lot of private info examined). It seems that
they WITHHOLD most of the details until AFTER you sign and submit and are accepted
(maybe?).
In Chase Manhattan's case, there is still a question as to how they determine
"good-standing": ie whether there is a specific "formula" or whether it is something
that is determined by a "person". Obviously, having a clearly-defined formula is the
only "honest" way. If it is a situation where it is determined by a "person" with no
clearly-defined and disclosed criteria, then NO consumer could know or ASSERT that they
are in "good-standing" and would be subject to the whim of Chase Manhattan Bank without
realizing this potential hazard. To read the statement that was posted, it is not
unreasonable to assume ANYTHING. One late payment (lost mail?) and you could be stuck
with the death-rate.
In the thread I suggested that anyone considering taking Chase Manhattan's offer should
call and have the COMPLETE terms of the contract mailed BEFORE signing anything.
It seems that they make a proposal (through the US mail) and withhold most of the
details at the time that they are requiring the consumer's signature.
T AC
Darren Meahl
peter nelson <pne...@lagoon.ultranet.com> wrote:
>Darren Meahl wrote:
>> ALL diets have a 95-98% FAILURE rate. Isn't it
>> about time we stopped blaming the dieter and started
>> blaming the diet?
>It makes no sense to "blame" a diet, since a diet
>has no volition - "blame" can only be assigned to
>something which can make a choice. A dieter can
>make a choice; a diet can't. So yes, I blame the
>dieter for dieting in the first place, for being
>sedentary, for basing their goals on unrealistic
>and stupid fashion model images, and for not
>understanding the basics of healthy eating.
This logic is so specious I am just shaking my head in wonder.
Darren Meahl
T AC <TA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>In Chase Manhattan's case, there is still a question as to how they determine
>"good-standing": ie whether there is a specific "formula" or whether it is something
>that is determined by a "person". Obviously, having a clearly-defined formula is the
>only "honest" way. If it is a situation where it is determined by a "person" with no
>clearly-defined and disclosed criteria, then NO consumer could know or ASSERT that they
>are in "good-standing" and would be subject to the whim of Chase Manhattan Bank without
>realizing this potential hazard. To read the statement that was posted, it is not
>unreasonable to assume ANYTHING. One late payment (lost mail?) and you could be stuck
>with the death-rate.
>In the thread I suggested that anyone considering taking Chase Manhattan's offer should
>call and have the COMPLETE terms of the contract mailed BEFORE signing anything.
>It seems that they make a proposal (through the US mail) and withhold most of the
>details at the time that they are requiring the consumer's signature.
They may not disclose everything at the time you APPLY. But when they
mail you a credit card, they send you every detail. It is pages long,
reduced to infintesimally small type, but if you read it, you will
KNOW what the terms are (including the one-late-payment=32% interest)
BEFORE you use the card. You are then free to cut up the card and
close the account, unused. At NO point are you ever able to use their
account without having been forewarned of the consequences of your
behavior (which, imnsho, you are trying desperately to avoid taking
the responsibility for).
Karl Pollak
jeff...@sprintmail.com (Jeff Carpenter) wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, T AC <TA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>ANY bad debt gets written off as bad debt, and is used to avoid paying taxes on profits.
>>I fail to see any "risk". They make $billions, and stick the taxpayers with any adverse
>>consequences of their "calculations".
>A tax write-off is not a dollar for dollar proposition. How exactly
>do taxpayers get stuck with "adverse consequences" of a bank writing
>off bad debts?
Jeff, why bother responding to an obvious Socialist troll?
T AC
Karl Pollak <kpo...@nospam.com> wrote in article <5g6uso$f...@thoth.portal.ca>...
Da, comrade!
YOU'RE obviously only interested in Fascist trolling.
I guess it would be tough for you to respond anyway since none of your simplistic
beliefs hold up in the really-real-world.
If believing that consumers should not be ALLOWED to be stepped-on simply because they
are "underfoot", then call me whatever you want, just don't call me.
Here are some labels you may use freely in your next post:
Socialist, Fascist
Patriot, Loyalist
Christian, heathan
Citizen, barbarian
Intelligent, challenged
Don't forget: when referring to someone else, use the first label in the pair. When
referring to yourself ALLWAYS use the second (just for contrast and accuracy).
Seig Heil, Karl.
T AC
Gene Gurevich
On 10 Mar 1997, Annette C. Hollmann wrote:
> BUT show me a budget how you can do this on a minimum wage job, no
> overtime allowed (you're lucky if you get 40 hours a week), and no
> friend/relatives to stay with. According to my calculations, it would only
> be possible to save up about $1000 per year for a single person on minimum
> wage.
It will amount to more then 10% savings rate which is higher then
the average nationwide. I also find it very funny that you complain
that min wage at $4.70 doesn't pay enough yet earlier you were all in support
of setting it to $4.70 What gives?
T AC
Karl Pollak <kpo...@nospam.com> wrote in tirade <5g6uso$f...@thoth.portal.c=> =
> >On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, T AC <TA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> =
> >>ANY bad debt gets written off as bad debt,
> >>and is used to avoid paying taxes on profits.
> >>I fail to see any "risk". They make $billions,
> >>and stick the taxpayers with any adverse =
> >>consequences of their "calculations".
> =
> Jeff, why bother responding to an obvious Socialist troll?
> =
> ----------------------
> Karl Pollak
> [Respond in this newsgroup only. Send _no_ e-mail]
Da, comrade!
If I am a Socialist, then you are an AssHole. No, actually, you are an assh=
ole =
regardless. Besides, I'm rubber, you're glue=85.. (damn, I stole your best =
comeback).
You apparently feel some need to show off your shiny new "label-maker" (and=
spiffy =
brown-shirt).
You, Karl, I am now sure, are only interested in Fascist trolling, and, spe=
aking of =
Fascist trolls=85 well=85 never mind=85.. I'm not going to drag your mothe=
r into this.
I guess it would be tough for YOU to "respond" anyway since your simplistic=
beliefs =
generally don't work well here in the really-real-world.
If believing that consumers should not be ALLOWED to be stepped-on simply b=
ecause they =
are "underfoot" offends you, then you can call me whatever you want, just d=
on't call me.
Here are some neat labels you may use freely in your next post:
Socialist, Fascist
Republican, Fascist
Democrat, Fascist
Patriot, Loyalist
Citizen, Barbarian
Enlightened, Heathen
Prey, Predator
Intelligent, Challenged
Don't forget to refer to yourself ALLWAYS using the second label in each pa=
ir (for your =
own accuracy and contrast). To be certain, there are labels that would fit=
BETWEEN in =
each pair but your "binary" labeling system seems to prevent you from THINK=
ING in that =
manner so I won't TRY to confuse you.
Sieg Heil, Karl. Good luck in WunderLanden.
T AC
Keith R. Williams
<snips>
> Here are some neat labels you may use freely in your next post:
> Socialist, Fascist
> Republican, Fascist
> Democrat, Fascist
> Patriot, Loyalist
> Citizen, Barbarian
> Enlightened, Heathen
> Prey, Predator
> Intelligent, Challenged
Nah, Karl nailed it the first time. He doesn't deed any more
qualifiers.
----
Keith R. Williams
k...@ibm.net
P.S. Your response says volumes!
Jeff Carpenter
On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 01:32:36 -0500, T AC <TA...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
>Jeff Carpenter <jeff...@sprintmail.com> wrote in article
>> A tax write-off is not a dollar for dollar proposition. How exactly
>> do taxpayers get stuck with "adverse consequences" of a bank writing
>> off bad debts?
>
>Because they AVOID PAYING TAXES by applying the bad debt against their profits. I am not
>sure that it's NOT a dollar-for-dollar arrangement, but I am CERTAIN that it works in
>that manner.
Well of COURSE it works that way. It works that way for every type of
company. In our firm, if we don't get paid for our services, we write
off the debt as a deduction. You only get a cash benefit which is
equal to whatever tax rate you pay, NOT dollar for dollar.
>Jeff, if you have one of those applications handy, please relate the bank name, if there
>is any information regarding "PENALTY-RATES", max number of late payments,
>good-standing, etc. on or with the application.
My mistake. There is not any info regarding penalty rates that I know
of. HOWEVER, it does say that the rate is for a cardholder in good
standing.
>In the thread "Chase Manhattan Bank >= Loan Shark" one poster (who declined Chase's
>offer) related that with the contract proposal they mailed to him there was a mention
>of "good-standing" without any definition of good-standing.
What else would good standing mean? It means that you pay your bill
on time. Some creditors will allow a certain amount of late payments,
but most of them consider good standing to me on time payments.
>Apparently, that information
>is made available AFTER (maybe?) they sign and submit their application: AFTER Chase
>does a credit check (+1 inquiry and a whole lot of private info examined). It seems that
>they WITHHOLD most of the details until AFTER you sign and submit and are accepted
>(maybe?).
>In Chase Manhattan's case, there is still a question as to how they determine
>"good-standing": ie whether there is a specific "formula" or whether it is something
>that is determined by a "person". Obviously, having a clearly-defined formula is the
>only "honest" way.
What does honesty have to do with it. If you pay your bill on time,
you are in good standing. If you don't, you are not in good standing.
Seems pretty easy to me.
>If it is a situation where it is determined by a "person" with no
>clearly-defined and disclosed criteria, then NO consumer could know or ASSERT that they
>are in "good-standing" and would be subject to the whim of Chase Manhattan Bank without
>realizing this potential hazard. To read the statement that was posted, it is not
>unreasonable to assume ANYTHING. One late payment (lost mail?) and you could be stuck
>with the death-rate.
>
>In the thread I suggested that anyone considering taking Chase Manhattan's offer should
>call and have the COMPLETE terms of the contract mailed BEFORE signing anything.
>
>It seems that they make a proposal (through the US mail) and withhold most of the
>details at the time that they are requiring the consumer's signature.
T AC
Jeff,
I appreciate you expressing your opinion in a rational manner.
The issue of "good-standing" is important, and should be clearly
defined. It is not inconceivable that someone's payment could get lost
in the mail. There are probably thousands of pieces of mail lost daily
(tens-of-thousands? who knows). If a consumer can be subjected to this
penalty rate without knowing EXACTLY what the parameters are, I don't
think that any reasonable person could call that "honest", or
"truth-in-lending".
The fact that Chase Manhattan Bank (for example) doesn't fully disclose
all of the terms of their card as they are proposing it (and requiring a
signature) does not seem legal. Doesn't that seem as though they are
withholding critical information at the same time that the consumer is
"baring his financial soul" (by signing the app and allowing a credit
exam)? The information they withhold is pretty vital in determining if
one would even want their card in the first place.
Someone posted this reply:
> They may not disclose everything at the time you APPLY. But when they
> mail you a credit card, they send you every detail. It is pages long,
> reduced to infintesimally small type, but if you read it, you will
> KNOW what the terms are (including the one-late-payment=32% interest)
> BEFORE you use the card. You are then free to cut up the card and
> close the account, unused. At NO point are you ever able to use their
> account without having been forewarned of the consequences of your
> behavior (which, imnsho, you are trying desperately to avoid taking
> the responsibility for).
Let me say for the record, I DON'T have any problems with my credit (and
I also have never applied for a Chase card, btw).
The information they initially withhold is disclosed a little late.
After you've got the card, they've already gone through all your private
financial credit information (with your permission). If you did not want
their card after discovering (maybe) that 1 late payment = 32% APR,
you've already racked up a credit inquiry just to get a look at all of
their terms and conditions.
If a credit card company sent me an offer of 5.9% APR for 12 months, and
it could be learned from their initial proposal that 1 late payment =
32% APR, I would certainly not consider getting their card much less
signing anything that they could use to gain access to my private credit
information.
Perhaps the problem is not that it is legal to operate this way(maybe?),
but that it's not illegal (maybe?). The longer any practice continues,
good or bad, the more it becomes status-quo, and difficult to reverse
or correct.
Focusing on the case outlined previously, (a low-income, hard-working
family), where a situation arises causing the need to USE credit, the
family could be subjected to these usurious interest rates after one
late (lost-in-mail) payment. Given the situation where the car
(employment transportation) needs immediate repair, they could USE
credit to repair the car and repay the credit card over time (regularly,
of course, through lots of Extra blood, sweat and tears).
The only other options are totally disruptive to our system. They can
loose the job, maybe declare bankruptcy, maybe go on welfare. An APR of
32% may be all it would take to push them over the brink from tax-paying
self-sufficiency into taxpayer support through welfare. An APR of 32%
benefits only the shareholders of that bank, essentially at the
taxpayer's risk (no to mention the consumer). Write-offs aside, I think
you can see the correlation between the shareholder's benefit and the
taxpayer's risk.
Would you agree that full and complete disclosure of credit card terms
should be required at the time of proposal, particularly when the
proposal is made through the US mail?
Would you also agree that withholding any of the credit card's terms and
conditions before gaining access to private credit information is wrong?
In a previous post Karl Pollak decided to throw out a Socialist label
and stick his head back in the sand. For the benefit of Karl's
label-maker; I am not a Socialist, I'm actually an Independent. I
register that way so that no Democrat or Republican candidate can run
census numbers at election time and calculate that I will blindly vote
for them just because of their label.
Thanks.
T AC
T AC
Phaedrus
In article <3327D1...@worldnet.att.net>,
T AC <TA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Jeff,
>I appreciate you expressing your opinion in a rational manner.
That sort of thing shouldn't be allowed on Usenet. :-)
>The issue of "good-standing" is important, and should be clearly
>defined. It is not inconceivable that someone's payment could get lost
>in the mail. There are probably thousands of pieces of mail lost daily
>(tens-of-thousands? who knows). If a consumer can be subjected to this
>penalty rate without knowing EXACTLY what the parameters are, I don't
>think that any reasonable person could call that "honest", or
>"truth-in-lending".
Hmmm. Personally, I don't see much confusion in the concept of "good
standing"; if you don't make your payments on time, you're not in good
standing. Maybe that's just me...
And let me bring a little personal experience into this. I have a
very good credit history. I've been human; I've been late on payments a
few times--because I got disorganized and didn't notice the bill until it was
too late, or (back when I was in college) because my paycheck was late and I'd
been living off an extra-large pepperoni pizza for the last two days. :-)
And I never got a nastygram; I never got slapped with a penalty rate; I never
got threatened with cancellation or anything else. That's because I employed
a tactic that seemed awfully obvious to me, but that everyone I mention to
seems to think is a revolutionary concept. I picked up the phone, I called
the number on the back of the card, and I said "Hi. I'm terribly sorry about
this, but my paycheck is a little late this month, and I'm not going to be
able to pay until XX/YY." [Or "I just now noticed your bill, and I'm putting
the payment in the mail today".] Invariably, their response was "no problem";
I never got hit with a late charge, and I frequently didn't even get charged
interest. Likewise, I've twice had payments simply disappear (whether lost in
the mail or lost at the bank, I don't know); when I got the next statement and
see that the payment wasn't credited, I picked up the phone and called, and
both times they said "Okay; if you can send another check to this address by
next week, I'll waive the charges."
Maybe this is just because I've never gotten seriously behind. But from
my experience, and from watching my friends' and roommates' experiences, I've
found that as long as you keep in contact with credit card companies when
things go wrong, they're more than willing to assume the best about your
motivations; if you don't keep in contact with them, they're more than willing
to assume the worst.
>The fact that Chase Manhattan Bank (for example) doesn't fully disclose
>all of the terms of their card as they are proposing it (and requiring a
>signature) does not seem legal. Doesn't that seem as though they are
>withholding critical information at the same time that the consumer is
>"baring his financial soul" (by signing the app and allowing a credit
>exam)? The information they withhold is pretty vital in determining if
>one would even want their card in the first place.
Well, it's legal; the only things they're legally required to disclose
at the time of applications are the things in "the box" on the application--
the annual fee, the grace period, the initial interest rate, etc.). You
can argue that more information _should_ be required, and I'd agree, but
it's currently not.
And frankly, I consider the lack of this information to be a valuable
chance to learn about the company. If I receive an application that sounds
interesting, I find out the number of the bank, call, and say "Hi. I just
got an application for your card, and it sounds interesting, but I'd like
some more information about the terms before I apply. Could you send me a
copy of your cardmember agreement?" If the response is "No, we can't send
that to you yet," then I already know everything about that bank then I need
to know, don't I?
--
\o\ If you're interested in books/stories with transformation themes, \o\
/o/ try <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/phaedrus/translist/translist.html>. /o/
\o\ New list entries always appreciated. FC1.21:FC(W/C)p6arw A- C->++ D>++ \o\
/o/ H+ M>+ P R T++++ W** Z+ Sm RLCT a cmn++++$ d e++ f+++ h- i++wf p-- sm# /o/
Arwen
T AC wrote:
> Here are some neat labels you may use freely in your next post:
> Socialist, Fascist
> Republican, Fascist
> Democrat, Fascist
> Patriot, Loyalist
> Citizen, Barbarian
> Enlightened, Heathen
> Prey, Predator
> Intelligent, Challenged
>
> Don't forget to refer to yourself ALLWAYS using the second label in each pair (for your
> own accuracy and contrast). To be certain, there are labels that would fit BETWEEN in
> each pair but your "binary" labeling system seems to prevent you from THINKING in that
> manner so I won't TRY to confuse you.
>
I don't give a damn about this little flame-fest, but for your
information, "heathen" is not at the other end of the spectrum from
"enlightened".
--
Julia
also known in these Current Middle Ages as:
Arwen Elandris of Aegelwoode
Bluefeather Clan, Ostgardr, East.
Proud Libertarian, lesbian, ***Norse heathen***,
hardcore, nutball Xenite!
Leigh R Hidell
: The issue of "good-standing" is important, and should be clearly defined. It is not
: inconceivable that someone's payment could get lost in the mail. There are probably
: thousands of pieces of mail lost daily (tens-of-thousands? who knows). If a consumer can
: be subjected to this penalty rate without knowing EXACTLY what the parameters are, I
: don't think that any reasonable person could call that "honest", or "truth-in-lending".
This is how I handle this problem....
I have on several occasions over the past couple of decades
had a credit card payment "lost in the mail." In one case
in the early 80s, this involved a bank which I learned
from friends had a pattern of "losing" your checks in
the mail. What I did was I simply paid off the balance
but NOT the finance charge. I also cut up the card &
returned it to the bank in question. I was never again
billed for the finance charge, nor did it affect my credit
rating.
Another friend asked me to write a similar letter for
him when they lost his bill. They were much nastier
to him (threatening phone calls, etc.) but eventually
they gave up on him too. AFAIK, it didn't affect his credit
rating either.
On the other occasions where the banks have lost
my checks in the mail, I have never had any problem
putting the charge "in dispute" & eventually having
it removed. Key: Put your complaint in writing
& send it by certified mail. Also, immediately
switch the balance to another card (or pay it off
if you can) while sweetly explaining in your letter
that you will not use their card again until the
matter is resolved. If you are really ticked off,
as I have been at times, cut up the card & say that
you will not use it again.
What has happened to me on these occasions is that
pretty soon I get a call begging for me to please,
pretty please "come back" to their credit card
company & of course they'll remove that nasty charge
& wouldn't consider charging that nasty rate.
I can't remember offhand if Chase is one of the companies
that tried the "lost in the mail scam" or not, but
any problems I've had w/ them have always been promptly
resolved. Most of my "lost in the mail" scammers
were local banks who probably thought they could get
away w/ murder because, hey, it's New Orleans.
--Leigh
Jeff Carpenter
On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 05:04:08 -0500, T AC <TA...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
>Jeff,
>
>I appreciate you expressing your opinion in a rational manner.
No problem. I try to make it a habit :)
>The issue of "good-standing" is important, and should be clearly
>defined. It is not inconceivable that someone's payment could get lost
>in the mail. There are probably thousands of pieces of mail lost daily
>(tens-of-thousands? who knows). If a consumer can be subjected to this
>penalty rate without knowing EXACTLY what the parameters are, I don't
>think that any reasonable person could call that "honest", or
>"truth-in-lending".
I agree. Although, if you think about it, a late payment means 30
days late. So if the payment is late by 30 days, chances are the bank
is going to either 1) Call you, 2) send you a letter, or 3) Send your
next months statement. You will know that the payment was never
received and can contact the bank.
Technically, you will not be in "good-standing" anymore, but if you
can prove that the payment WAS mailed, most credit card companies will
make the situation right again. If not, cancel the account and find a
new bank.
>The fact that Chase Manhattan Bank (for example) doesn't fully disclose
>all of the terms of their card as they are proposing it (and requiring a
>signature) does not seem legal. Doesn't that seem as though they are
>withholding critical information at the same time that the consumer is
>"baring his financial soul" (by signing the app and allowing a credit
>exam)? The information they withhold is pretty vital in determining if
>one would even want their card in the first place.
I don't think that Chase is doing anything different than any other
bank. There is no way that a bank the size of Chase is going to do
something that violates the law. I'd bet a large some of money that
what they are doing, while not necessarily what we would like to see,
IS legal.
>The information they initially withhold is disclosed a little late.
>After you've got the card, they've already gone through all your private
>financial credit information (with your permission). If you did not want
>their card after discovering (maybe) that 1 late payment = 32% APR,
>you've already racked up a credit inquiry just to get a look at all of
>their terms and conditions.
I really don't see this as a big deal. So they have "gone through all
of my private financial credit information." So what? One credit
inquiry is not going to ruin your life. You cancel the card before
you use it and that is the end of it.
[snip]
>Focusing on the case outlined previously, (a low-income, hard-working
>family), where a situation arises causing the need to USE credit, the
>family could be subjected to these usurious interest rates after one
>late (lost-in-mail) payment.
No. They are given the information before they purchase anything. If
the do not want to take the risk, then they shouldn't use the card.
>Given the situation where the car
>(employment transportation) needs immediate repair, they could USE
>credit to repair the car and repay the credit card over time (regularly,
>of course, through lots of Extra blood, sweat and tears).
I agree.
>The only other options are totally disruptive to our system. They can
>loose the job, maybe declare bankruptcy, maybe go on welfare. An APR of
>32% may be all it would take to push them over the brink from tax-paying
>self-sufficiency into taxpayer support through welfare.
I don't agree. A single APR change on a single card MAY be the straw
that breaks the camels back but it CERTAINLY is not the problem.
>An APR of 32%
>benefits only the shareholders of that bank, essentially at the
>taxpayer's risk (no to mention the consumer). Write-offs aside, I think
>you can see the correlation between the shareholder's benefit and the
>taxpayer's risk.
A 32% APR is a method of weeding out customers the bank does not want.
It isn't to make them money. I had a credit card once that raised its
interest rate 5% one month for no reason. I canceled.
>Would you agree that full and complete disclosure of credit card terms
>should be required at the time of proposal, particularly when the
>proposal is made through the US mail?
I agree that this would be a benefit to consumers and should be
required.
>Would you also agree that withholding any of the credit card's terms and
>conditions before gaining access to private credit information is wrong?
I wouldn't say it is wrong, I would say it is not illegal. Just
because they don't do something I would like them to do, doesn't
necessarily make them wrong.
T AC
> >I appreciate you expressing your opinion in a rational manner.
> No problem. I try to make it a habit :)
Jeff, your points are taken.
You are looking at some aspects of the situation from the eyes of someone who could not
really be "cornered" by a bank. You have (no doubt) other options: better wages, other
credit cards, savings, etc.
> >The issue of "good-standing" is important, and should be clearly
> >defined. It is not inconceivable that someone's payment could get lost
> >in the mail. There are probably thousands of pieces of mail lost daily
> >(tens-of-thousands? who knows). If a consumer can be subjected to this
> >penalty rate without knowing EXACTLY what the parameters are, I don't
> >think that any reasonable person could call that "honest", or
> >"truth-in-lending".
>
> I agree. Although, if you think about it, a late payment means 30
> days late. So if the payment is late by 30 days, chances are the bank
> is going to either 1) Call you, 2) send you a letter, or 3) Send your
> next months statement. You will know that the payment was never
> received and can contact the bank.
Possibly, possibly not. On occasion, I've had payments "lost-in-the-mail" and never saw
them again, ever, only becoming aware of it when the next statement arrived. Those
problems can be fixed over the phone, at the Bank's discretion.
> Technically, you will not be in "good-standing" anymore, but if you
> can prove that the payment WAS mailed, most credit card companies will
> make the situation right again. If not, cancel the account and find a
> new bank.
Since we are talking about "terms-and-conditions" and allot of fine print, let's Be
technical for a moment. It would be impossible to Prove to a bank that an ordinary piece
of 1st-class mail Was mailed if it did truly get lost; It would be lost, and maybe never
seen again.
From the "low-income, hard-working-family" position, canceling a line of credit could
prove to be self-defeating. There is the low-income, and at that point, there is (at
least) one-more "TRW" inquiry, there is (at-least) one-more delinquency entry, and there
is a balance/debt owed at 32% APR. From that position, another credit alternative may
not be available; They could effectively be "cornered" by one lost piece of mail.
> > <snip>
> <snip>
> >The information they initially withhold is disclosed a little late.
> >After you've got the card, they've already gone through all your private
> >financial credit information (with your permission). If you did not want
> >their card after discovering (maybe) that 1 late payment = 32% APR,
> >you've already racked up a credit inquiry just to get a look at all of
> >their terms and conditions.
>
> I really don't see this as a big deal. So they have "gone through all
> of my private financial credit information." So what? One credit
> inquiry is not going to ruin your life. You cancel the card before
> you use it and that is the end of it.
You're right. One credit inquiry isn't going to affect your credit (or mine), BUT, from
the position of the "low-income, hard-working-family", EVERY inquiry could be
significant.
Even if the consumer declines the credit card after receiving it and subsequently
discovering the unacceptable terms (maybe), the private financial information the bank
has gathered can (easily) be used again to target this "low-income, hard-working-family"
(though a subsidiary, or associate-lender) for OTHER
low-introductory-interest 1-late-payment=32%-APR credit cards. Then, assuming the
"low-income, hard-working-family" is searching for cheaper credit (logically), the
signature-inquiry-disclosure cycle is repeated.
<snip>
> A 32% APR is a method of weeding out customers the bank does not want.
> It isn't to make them money. I had a credit card once that raised its
> interest rate 5% one month for no reason. I canceled.
Ironically, imposing the 32% APR could not weed out or otherwise shake loose a customer
that has no credit alternatives. The customers they "lose" are the ones who have the
money/means/alternatives to be insulted and take their business "elsewhere". In the case
of a "low-income, hard-working-family", they may not have, or may not be able to get an
additional credit card.
Btw, I hate to keep using up bandwidth repeating the phrase "low-income,
hard-working-family", but I think, if just once, I say only "low-income", 17 people will
post "welfare", "deadbeat" and "charity" type opinions and miss or obscure the issue.
> >Would you agree that full and complete disclosure of credit card terms
> >should be required at the time of proposal, particularly when the
> >proposal is made through the US mail?
>
> I agree that this would be a benefit to consumers and should be
> required.
Good Man ;-)
> >Would you also agree that withholding any of the credit card's terms and
> >conditions before gaining access to private credit information is wrong?
>
> I wouldn't say it is wrong, I would say it is not illegal. Just
> because they don't do something I would like them to do, doesn't
> necessarily make them wrong.
>> The longer any practice continues, good or bad,
>> the more it becomes status-quo, and difficult to reverse or correct.
The information the bank acquires before disclosing all their terms may represent a
significant "piece of value", particularly to the "low-income, hard-working-family".
Beyond their privacy, their "TRW" is affected by accumulating another inquiry, and as a
result, possibly their ability to choose to decline the credit card with the
unacceptable terms: the more inquiries, generally, the fewer choices.
In that respect it seems that the bank is actually "taking", almost stealing something.
If their terms were fully disclosed in the mailed proposal (and deemed unacceptable at
the time of the proposition) they would never be granted access to the credit info,
hence, no additional potentially-option-narrowing "TRW" inquiries wasted on death-cards
(or their subsidiaries).
My disagreement with this trend that the banks are starting (not just Chase) essentially
is that they are blitz-mailing these low interest offers, they are withholding terms
that are shameful (as evidenced by their being withheld), and as a result, are gaining
access (wasting at best, at worst who knows?) to information that they do not deserve to
see (as a direct benefit of their concealment). They obviously would not allow the
consumer to reveal their positive credit info and conceal negative details. They (and I)
would call that dishonest.
When re-examining the situation entirely from the "hard-working, low-income"
perspective, do you agree that their alternatives (possibly none) to this 32% APR usury
are quite different than yours (or mine)?
Thanks.
T AC
Karl Pollak
jeff...@sprintmail.com (Jeff Carpenter) wrote:
>>Would you agree that full and complete disclosure of credit card terms
>>should be required at the time of proposal, particularly when the
>>proposal is made through the US mail?
>I agree that this would be a benefit to consumers and should be
>required.
Jeff, you're buying into this person's idiotic babbling. The fact is
that any consumer can go to the bank and ask for the complete credit
card terms before he even picks up their credit card application.
None do it, because none care.
>>Would you also agree that withholding any of the credit card's terms and
>>conditions before gaining access to private credit information is wrong?
>I wouldn't say it is wrong, I would say it is not illegal. Just
>because they don't do something I would like them to do, doesn't
>necessarily make them wrong.
Again, nobody is withholding anything from anyone. Just go to any
branch and ask for the contract.
T AC
Karl Pollak <kpo...@nospam.com> scribbled in article <5gbs7h$h...@thoth.portal.ca>...
>
> >>Would you agree that full and complete disclosure of credit card terms
> >>should be required at the time of proposal, particularly when the
> >>proposal is made through the US mail?
>
> >required.
>
> Jeff, you're buying into this person's idiotic babbling. The fact is
> that any consumer can go to the bank and ask for the complete credit
> card terms before he even picks up their credit card application.
> None do it, because none care.
While I'd wager that no one would miss YOU if you took time-off to "pick up" a
disclosure (cross-country bank), may I instead suggest that you pull your finger out of
your nose and use it to re-read the post where I recommended CALLING the bank to have
them mail the full disclosure to you before signing the application. Your reading
comprehension has failed you miserably in that you have completely missed the point of
these credit offers being solicited through the US mail, not "picked up" at the bank,
dumpkoff. Your wee intellect (and world) becomes more apparent with each post..
> >>Would you also agree that withholding any of the credit card's terms and
> >>conditions before gaining access to private credit information is wrong?
>
> >I wouldn't say it is wrong, I would say it is not illegal. Just
> >because they don't do something I would like them to do, doesn't
> >necessarily make them wrong.
>
> Again, nobody is withholding anything from anyone. Just go to any
> branch and ask for the contract.
> ----------------------
> Karl Pollak
The MAIN point (which you've also missed, btw) is that they ARE concealing and
withholding the worst details from their blitz-mailing credit offers until after the
application is signed and submitted to them.
Haven't you got labels to lick and stick somewhere Karl?
T AC
Leigh R Hidell
: Technically, you will not be in "good-standing" anymore, but if you
: can prove that the payment WAS mailed, most credit card companies will
: make the situation right again. If not, cancel the account and find a
: new bank.
Jeff, it is not usually physically possible to prove that
the payment was mailed, unless you make a habit of sending
out your bills certified mail (which I don't). Nonetheless,
I have always had the credit card companies involved correct
correct the situation.
What I'm trying to say is...even if you can't PROVE
you mailed something when you said, you should still
expect to be treated right. I have been...just don't
be afraid to put your complaint IN WRITING.
Telephone calls alone don't work w/ credit card companies, IME.
--Leigh
TGOS100
jeff...@sprintmail.com (Jeff Carpenter) wrote:
>I don't think that Chase is doing anything different than any other
>bank. There is no way that a bank the size of Chase is going to do
>something that violates the law. I'd bet a large some of money that
>what they are doing, while not necessarily what we would like to see,
>IS legal.
Chase does have a tendency of making up their own rules. I tried to cash a
check that was drawn ON THEIR bank AT THEIR and was refused. Turns out
they have a policy that both parties have to have an account at their bank
before they will cash a check. Curious, that they have no signs posted to
this effect. I dislike Chase for their lack of cooperation and arrogance.
Steve D