Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Um, it's a little weird people defending the credit card companies. I'm not an evil person, I don't spend lavishly..if I did, I'd be wearing clothes that weren't from Target or The Gap. I have a $2K spending limit on my card & I believe a year & a half ago, my rate was 14%. Horrid, yes, because I have bad credit. However, I've had this card for a few years. Last year, they upped it to 23%. I of course called them & got the whole ball & wax. Then, it was upped to 29%. Now, I was late twice in the past year...I know, to you perfect people out there, that's a travesty. When I say late, I mean I my payment was a day late, no joke. Yes, I know, that's still late. However, to jack up my rate to 29%??? I'm sorry people, that's ludicrous. I don't care if you have perfect credit or not. I've talked to many many people about this, most of them who have very good credit, and they all are outraged about it. This is not right, I don't give a pooh how perfect you are, that's not right.
this isn't an issue of defending the credit card companies. it is a matter of defending our entire system and the issue of TRUST that occurs at the point of a non-cash transaction. you go into an agreement with your eyes wide open. they extend you trust as a courtesy and you have accepted the duty to pay it back. by the way, if you are only a day late you can always get those extra charges taken off if you fight it. if you object to these non-cash transactions, go back to dealing in cash.
everyone who thinks they "got over" and screwed over those big bad credit card companies should realize that they are screwing over ordinary citizens because those ACTUAL LOSSES/THEFT are made up somewhere.
while people rationalize that they "got over" on those companies, they actually got over on their fellow citizens.
Seems like a lot of people are drinking the bank kool aid. It's a form of indentured servitude, you'd be a fool not to walk away. The people that attach "morals" to a BANK are out of their minds.
Show me what morals Goldmann Sachs had when dealing with Venezuela during the 90s, or currently in Iceland, and now every nation on the planet.
Exactly - thank you!
It's amazing how there are two sets of moral/ethical codes as it pertains to credit, debt, etc. Obviously, the banks and corporations are exempt from any personal responsibility and accountability. When they declare bankruptcy, etc., it is a "business decision." When a consumer is having financial difficulties, it is "their fault, they did something wrong, they were greedy, frivolous, stupid, entitled, etc." and it's a moral and/or personal failure as a human being. HOGWASH!!!
everyone who thinks they "got over" and screwed over those big bad credit card companies should realize that they are screwing over ordinary citizens because those ACTUAL LOSSES/THEFT are made up somewhere.
while people rationalize that they "got over" on those companies, they actually got over on their fellow citizens.
Yeah, that's what they'd like you to think. I used to believe that too. Then I lived for 8 years under the Bush/Cheney reign and I was completely cured of that. Now, I am fully convinced that corporate America runs the show in our country and spends massive amounts of money running a propoganda campaign which sets them up as the "good guys". No, thank you.
Well Yea, But in this case the law (You know the courts) condone this act . So how can it be criminal?
Our government is unique in that its one weakness is that it often reflects the morality of its people. When people no longer hold these values, then its laws begin to reflect a disregard for them. This is why the founders consistently made it clear that in order for our system of government to resist corruption, its people must be morale and virtuous.
The law does not dictate morals and virtue to its people. This is the peoples charge. The fact that a law condones such irresponsible behavior is simply a reflection of its irresponsible people who condoned its course.
Yeah, that's what they'd like you to think. I used to believe that too. Then I lived for 8 years under the Bush/Cheney reign and I was completely cured of that. Now, I am fully convinced that corporate America runs the show in our country and spends massive amounts of money running a propoganda campaign which sets them up as the "good guys". No, thank you.
Not just corporate influence, yet also individual influence. Many of the laws we have concerning default, irresponsible action, etc... are a result to the demand of people individually wanting the government to allow them an option to escape responsibility. There is no single evil entity out there driving this, it is the people as a whole all each acting in irresponsible ways and each seeking to gain benefit without concern for the virtue of their actions.
You guys are heartless. Its the credit card company's fault for making the limits so high and so easy to use.
New cars are too hard to say no too. Besides it is those darn sales people who trick the trusting into buying what they can not afford.
Houses? Well they should be free anyway.
Personal responsibility? But But But that would mean that its my fault when I screw up wouldn't it? We vcan't have people feeling bad about themselves. Its much easier to blame someone else. I know Blame Bush he made people buy houses they couldnt afford.
That is an attempt to misplace blame.
Nobody forces people to make their decisions, though they may make it appealing to be irresponsible, the action is ultimately the persons. To say otherwise is to attempt to escape responsibility.
Wow, I can't believe the first posts in this thread. Let me say at the outset that I've never had an issue with paying for my card. Still, it's incredible how many people are willing to throw fellow Americans under the bus because of their ignorance, and for what? In order to preserve an incredibly exploitative industry and perpetuate its shady practices?
Personally I think high schools should teach students about fiscal responsibility, but that's another issue. Credit Card companies in particular go out of their way to deceive people. Big businesses have proven time and time again their willingness and adeptness with regard to prying profits out of the coffers of customers, and our governmental oversight agencies are sadly ineffectual and in need of major reform.
What's best is that nobody detracting from the post has substantively engaged his point, which regards morality. Should someone worry about making a payment if it means their children will go hungry?
First off, while some companies may specifically deceive, not all do. This is a case by case basis. I have had dealings with one company that was as you say and dealings with other companies who are not as you say.
There is also the individuals generalization of the issue, which is an attempt to evade their own responsibility by pointing to a singular evil to which politicians ride these irresponsible claims for their own gain. The individual sees a way to escape responsibility and the politician sees a way to stay elected. So there is no benefit to either side in pointing out the truth of an issue as both sides gain something by proclaiming a singular "big evil" to which they lay legislative siege.
There is the old saying "freedom is not free" and this is correct. Freedom comes with responsibility. It has certain obligations that must be held to or there are dire consequences to such neglect. The credit industry is an example of this. While I will not say that it is a one sided issue, yet with those companies who do act ethically and those customers who also act responsibly, there are no problems and often there is a benefit to both in the exchange.
The hardest thing for a person to do is to accept responsibility for their actions and as long as the option to point to another exists, many will take this using all sorts of rationalization.
If we were to take the logic used to claim the CC companies guilty in many of these claims, then we would also have to hold gun manufactures responsible for the use of their weapons. After all, they made it so easy to kill another with it, it couldn't be the fault of the one who used the gun right?
We would also have to blame theft on those who failed to completely secure their possessions. After all, they made it so easy for a person to just take it and walk away right?
We would also have to consider that a female being rapped is at fault due to the nature of her dress. After all, the rapist would have never committed such a wrong if she was not dressed so enticingly right?
All of these are irresponsible rationalizations a person makes to attempt to avoid the consequences of their actions.
That is essentially what is being used to garner support for this position. The CC company made credit to freely available and allowed people to spend using that credit. After all, the person wouldn't be in debt if these options were not freely available right?
If we were to take the logic used to claim the CC companies guilty in many of these claims, then we would also have to hold gun manufactures responsible for the use of their weapons. After all, they made it so easy to kill another with it, it couldn't be the fault of the one who used the gun right?
We would also have to blame theft on those who failed to completely secure their possessions. After all, they made it so easy for a person to just take it and walk away right?
We would also have to consider that a female being rapped is at fault due to the nature of her dress. After all, the rapist would have never committed such a wrong if she was not dressed so enticingly right?
All of these are irresponsible rationalizations a person makes to attempt to avoid the consequences of their actions.
That is essentially what is being used to garner support for this position. The CC company made credit to freely available and allowed people to spend using that credit. After all, the person wouldn't be in debt if these options were not freely available right?
Just to be clear, you compared a credit card company losing money to defaulters to a woman being raped due to her revealing clothing? Astounding verbal gymnastics. All 3 of your analogies are crude and quite poorly applicable to the question at hand. I also enjoyed how you insinuated that politicians who oppose the credit card companies are not interested in truth and are instead seeking their own gain. In fact, you still haven't addressed the issue. No one should try to pay their credit card bills when it would mean basically ruining their lives and those of their families. This isn't about strategic defaults.
Just to be clear, you compared a credit card company losing money to defaulters to a woman being raped due to her revealing clothing? Astounding verbal gymnastics. All 3 of your analogies are crude and quite poorly applicable to the question at hand. I also enjoyed how you insinuated that politicians who oppose the credit card companies are not interested in truth and are instead seeking their own gain. In fact, you still haven't addressed the issue. No one should try to pay their credit card bills when it would mean basically ruining their lives and those of their families. This isn't about strategic defaults.
I compared the rationalization process used to place blame. Logically, they are the same in that respect (the crime itself is irrelevant to the point I was making). In terms of the rapist, he places blame on the woman for being too enticing, that he would not have committed his crime if she would not have dressed or acted in such a way to provoke him. His rationalizing of the issue is to avoid taking responsibility for his actions, to place blame on another to suggest that somehow it was not his fault, that he did not have a choice in the matter.
Now, compare that to the case of a person who points out that the reason they are in massive debt is because the credit card offered too much money to them (10-15k limit), provided offers that were enticing (0% interest for 6 months) or other special deals of the like which were equally appealing.
They are the same in their rationalization process. Both attempt to avoid taking responsibility by blaming the CC or the woman for the actions they personally made the decision to make. Be it the person who raped or the person who is in debt, the decisions made to reach those results were fully in control of the person making them. The rapist could have chosen not to commit the crime, stopped before he committed it, etc... and the person in debt was free to choose not to use that credit, free to choose not to spend money, and fully in control of the responsibility for paying for that actions they did commit.
Argue them as different. Please, show me how they are not the same without using emotional reasoning, or unsupported accusations, or fallacious means.
Where money is concerned moral arguments are for suckers, and nobody knows better than the credit card executives that there's one born every minute.
Well said!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
