Debtors Revolt

[maat55]

I just got through watching Suzie Orman do a long segment with the lady who started the debtors revolt.

Never once during the segment did she say that it would be a good idea to only use credit cards when you can pay in full or that you are responsible for the contracts that you sign.

She also chastized the banks many times for angering the public. IMO, people will behave like stupid farm animals to get something before they have cash to buy it. It would have been nice to hear Suzie be more critical of poor decision making by those with CC debt.(yes, not all debt is stupid consumption debt, but most is bla,bla,bla)

I was one who left a comment on her video stating that she had handled the situation in an juvenile way. I do agree that the banks are either taking advantage of her or engaging in desperate measures, but they are still within the contract.

I believe that CC debt is first the responsibility of the individual and the banks are just willing participants that will take advantage of ones inability to be patient and financially savy.

What are your thoughts.

[cschin4]

The attitude nowadays seems to be "why pay what you owe and should be morally obligated to pay if you can get out of it". Frankly, I am getting a bit sick and tired of paying all my bills on time all the time, paying every dime I ever owed to anyone and then seeing people constantly scamming the system including our own govt representatives who don't think taxes apply to them either.

[EconoMutt]

It's definitely the lady's responsibility to pay her debt.
She had been doing that.
It's really a rotten deal for the bank to borrow money for 25 basis points and jack up someone's rate to 30%. Especially if she has been paying on time. It doesn't seem fair for the bank to take a consumer's tax money and then turn around and jack up their rates.
It also doesn't seem fair for the management to give themselves huge bonuses while accepting
bailout money. On the other hand, why not, it's legal.

[jasonnoguchi]

In a world where guns are blamed for killings, it won't be hard to see why banks are blamed for CC debts.

Its human nature to blame anything but themselves for the mess they made. So it is human nature to blame banks for providing them with CC when they are the ones who spent and not pay back.

Banks merely provided the tools, its the individual who must decide how to handle money and their lives. The old adage "he who laughs last laughs best" is golden.

[Inkstain82]

The attitude nowadays seems to be "why pay what you owe and should be morally obligated to pay if you can get out of it". Frankly, I am getting a bit sick and tired of paying all my bills on time all the time, paying every dime I ever owed to anyone and then seeing people constantly scamming the system including our own govt representatives who don't think taxes apply to them either.

"Do whatever you can that's in your best interest regardless of morality?"

I don't know where America's debtors learned that message. It couldn't have been from America's creditors...

Our problems run deep.

[maat55]

I will add that the lady has settled with BofA to go back to her original interest rate of 12.9%. Her balance was 5900 when she began her revolt.

Most responsible people would have got mad and just went and borrowed money from their bank, sold things or other and payed off the card.

I just wish Suzie had been more critical to her role in the situation.

[snafu]

Hadn't you noticed that ethics had been slipping for a long time. Personally, I thought it took a major hit with Nixon and a yet another low with Enron executives. We who believe we need to conduct our business on the 'high road,' are sneered and laughed at by the majority.

[EconoMutt]

It's too bad a person has to go on YouTube and hope your video goes viral for the banks to act ethically.
I get a kick out of the Bank of America commercials trying to tell us how much they care about their customers, then they turn around and stick it to them.
What they're doing is legal, it's just not ethical.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

What debtors' revolt? I haven't noticed any revolt. You mean that video some woman had on YouTube griping about her credit card bill? Has that inspired a revolt of some sort? Tell me about it. Sorry I don't have cable TV so don't view Suze Orman or hear any cable tv news reporting, which to a non-viewer sometimes seems peculiarly to drive and make the news as much as it reports, analyzes, and editorializes about it.

I do agree with EconoMutt that banks have advertised using credit to obtain things that are beyond one's grasp.

[asmom]

I just got through watching Suzie Orman do a long segment with the lady who started the debtors revolt.

Never once during the segment did she say that it would be a good idea to only use credit cards when you can pay in full

Actually she did say at the beginning of the Can I afford it segment that there would be no need for a debtors revolt if people didn't buy things they couldn't afford.

It would have been nice to hear Suzie be more critical of poor decision making by those with CC debt.(yes, not all debt is stupid consumption debt, but most is bla,bla,bla)

Suze is critical all the time of poor decision making by those with CC debt. That's the whole point of the Can I afford it segment.




For the record, I am not at all sympathetic to the debtor's revolt lady either. If you don't want to be at the mercy of the CC companies, then don't borrow money from them.

[jill8beans2]

Your credit card debt is your own responsibility - that should just be the way it is. People should know when they're spending money they don't have. I have my own debt and I know it's my responsiblity.

[cschin4]

It couldn't have been from America's creditors.

There is plenty of unethical behavior from creditors, no doubt. In fact, we used to have laws about "loan sharking". Creditors should not be allowed to run amok and tack on whatever fees, interest rate, without this being clearly disclosed to the borrower. In addition, creditors who make high risk loans should be made to suffer the consequences of having borrowers in default not getting bailed out. It used to be that you couldn't even get a loan of any type without having some collateral or real ability to repay the loan. Giving people home loans that are 5x their income is just absurd unless there are other assets with the real ability to pay.
And, I can see many instances where young borrowers really had no idea how much they could "afford" and some stupid bank swooped in to take advantage. That is plain wrong and if they default, the bank should pay the loan.
Having said all that, every person has a MORAL responsibility to pay what they owe and borrowed. Of course, we all know there are plenty of people who don't want to own up to their responsibilites.
And, yes, there are some instances where people cannot pay due to illness, etc so spare the flames because that isn't what I am talking about. I am sure every person here can name someone living well above their means.

[LuxLiving]

Yes, we should absolutely pay our obligations.

No, they shouldn't be allowed to be predatory. Usury laws used to have much more teeth it seemed to me.


Relevant link:
Americans for Fairness in Lending - The History of Usury

[wincrasher]

I'm so sick of these comments about it being "moral" to pay your debts.

Morality has nothing to do with it. Are the banks "immoral" to put you out on the street and let your children starve? I think not.

Their products are priced to include a certain level of default and late payment. They have buildings full of high priced actuaries and accountants to figure it out. Don't spend your time weeping for these people.

If you pay your debts as agreed, you reap the benefits - higher credit scores, limits and etc and all that goes with it. If you don't, then life is harder for you isn't it?

So if you feel so slighted at the unfairness of someone not having to, or just not paying their bills, you want to trade places with them? You want to exchange your debts for their credit rating? Go ahead. I won't.

[disneysteve]

I will add that the lady has settled with BofA to go back to her original interest rate of 12.9%.

I am usually one who defends the credit card companies as not being evil or predatory but one thing that I have always felt should be banned was changing the interest rate and terms AFTER the money was borrowed. If you make charges when your rate is 5%, your rate on that money should remain 5% until you pay it off (unless it was stated as a promotional rate for a set period of time). Banks should not be allowed to up the rate from 5% to 30% after the fact, no matter what happens to the borrower's credit score. I know the new CC rules address this and eliminate the "universal default" that lets CC #1 jack up your rate if you are late on a payment to CC #2, for example.

If they want to hike the rate on new charges, that's fine, but don't change the rate on the money that is already gone.