The American practice of enticing people to live beyond their means is spreading like a cancer throughout the "civilized" world. Right now, in America, our value is determined by a credit score. The ability to rent an apartment, purchase a car, buy car insurance or a host of other things that we used to take for granted are solidly under the influence of the credit system. Never mind that the information that these credit reporting agencies distribute is subjective, and downright inaccurate. The accuracy of the report is never in question...isn't even considered. As an American citizen, it's your responsibility to request your credit history and dispute any inaccuracies that "may" appear. Once these inaccuracies are disputed, an "investigation" is undertaken and within a couple of days, the results of that investigation are sent to you with findings that rarely alter the disputed item. How do you go about finding out what processes were used in the investigation? Who did the investigators talk to and what proof was provided as to the legitimacy of the claim? As far as I can tell, there is no way to find this information out without suing the credit reporting agency. Here's the kick in the balls. You usually have to agree not to sue the reporting agency for reporting inaccurate information in order to get a free copy of your report, so in order to get a copy that you can do anything with you have to pay for it? So, we have to pay for the privilege of seeing what these agencies are saying about us, sometimes with no basis in reality, and we can't do anything about it besides say...umm...could you please review the information? O.K. Now, you find out your credit is fucked, but not by any fault of your own, you may share the name of someone with bad credit...never mind that the SS number doesn't match.... Anyway, you're applying for a new job and you think that the interview went really well and are really expecting to get it, but the call never comes. Later, when it's too late to do anything about it, you find out that you were denied the job because of information reported on your credit history. You weren't allowed to buy the econo car at the used car lot because your credit is fucked, and you're not allowed to rent a new place to live because your credit is fucked. To top it all off, when you switch your insurance company, you find out that some won't insure you at a rate equal to that of other drivers your age, with a comparable driving history. You may have a spotless driving record, but pay an insurance rate equal to that of a driver with traffic violations or accidents. I guess the bottom line is that if your credit rating is bad in this country, you're a sub-human until you can fix it or prove that it wasn't bad in the first place. Now, we find out that this deranged way of thinking is starting to spread to other parts of the world. The question is, Will there be a place free from this credit bullshit in 20 years? And why are other countries so eager to follow us in our madness??? Help me out, I really want to understand.
People aren't enticed to live beyond their means. People make conscious decisions to live beyond their means. And you're making a huge assumption - that people have the right to borrow money. Which of course they don't. Would you lend money to someone who had a history of not paying it back?
Not Enticed??? I can quote ad campaigns that psychologically suggest that you're a great and worldly person if you can get the ultra gold, you're a worthwhile human being card, or the cards that "pay you" to use them. Hell, you can get cash if you use your card enough, or air miles, or any one of a thousand "bonuses" Not enticed enough? If you use some cards, a portion of your purchasing power goes toward the charity of your choice...you do want to support charity don't you? On the other hand, the hundreds of credit card offers that come pouring in the mail everyday aren't exactly solicited either. They are a good source of paper for fire starting in the winter if you have a wood stove, but I still don't enjoy getting them. Seriously though, I applaud your will in refraining from watching television and the ads that scream enticement. Your will power is commendable, but if you do happen to catch one of them, the ads I mean, look up the word "entice" right after it. And as for the huge assumption, I don't think people have a right to borrow money, I think it's a curse that's been set upon us. We have to enter into the system of credit, or you're referred to as a "Ghost" Doesn't sound like a positive thing to me. People are denied access to all kinds of things because of a lack of credit as well as just bad credit. To answer the other question...Hell no, I wouldn't loan money to someone that I knew couldn't pay it back, but I wouldn't deny someone an apartment because of a credit score. If they had the means to pay the rent, and good references, why would I look to a reporting agency that can't keep its facts straight and is being sued by thousands of people. The point is that common sense went on a fishing vacation when it comes to the credit industry and we, the consumers have the fish hook firmly lodged in our mouths.
Spooner--out of curiosity--what do you do to make money?You seem to come down against anything pertaining to helping the working people and for anything that helps the rich--the least of us that need much help.Am I reading you wrong?
That's a simplistic way of looking at things. I do believe in helping the poor - I vote, campaign for, and have post-grad work lined up for (a party that supports), for more progressive tax rates, increased social security, increased funding for education (which correlates most highly with social mobility), for more protective environmental standards, against agricultural tariffs, etc. I simply believe in looking at things logically, and I don't believe the evidence supports the notion that the poor can either be helped by simply increasing minimum wage or increasing protective tariffs (no matter how seductive an idea it is). At the same time, I believe in responsability, and I find the use of scapegoats despicable. In this case, that would be blaming advertisers for people's debt, or (assuming you were making reference to the minimum wage thread) corporations for poverty. People have free choice, and on the whole, corporations benefit the economy in a very significant way (although the potential for abuse is there). As for my employment? I attend UBC for eight months a year studying a double major in economics and political science (half-way through my fourth and final year). I work the other four months falling trees (most recently subcontracted out to an Enbridge Pipeline). In the past I've framed houses, worked for the Ministry of Parks, worked at a Canadian Tire, and at an A&W. I'm 21, and have been living on my own since I was 16.
Spooner, for a 21 y/o I think you have an excellent grasp of how the system "should" work. But there are things that you have yet to discover about life, and the credit system, It doesn't work as it should. Do you even realize how many people are adversely affected by the credit system every year? Did you realize that the majority of the Katrina survivers now have such serious credit problems that they can't just resume their normal lives? The fact is that disaster happens, divorce happens, inaccurate reporting happens along with a myriad of other factors that effect a persons credit standing. I'm not saying that irresponsibility doesn't happen, it does, and to a very large extent. Afterall, we're the instant gratification generation and what better way to get our toys than with somebody elses money? Just realize that there are things that can happen to your credit, through no fault of your own that will screw you financially for years and years after they occur. Just for example, my wife and her ex owed close to 46,000 dollars when they were divorced. The divorce court divided the debt evenly and after a lot of effort, she managed to re-pay most of the debt that was decreed her responsibility by the court. We were trying to buy a house at the time and when we were denied the house, we found her ex husbands debts on her credit report. We thought that it was a mistake and provided legal papers showing that the debt in question wasn't hers. We thought it was just a mistake and that it would be cleared up in no time and we'd get the house that we were looking at and everything would be groovy, but we found out that the credit card companies and the reporting agencies didn't have to honor the legal decree of a court, so the debt was still hers. Well, her credit score was still high enough that we paid off a couple of debts to bump it up so we could get the house that we wanted, again...no brainer. We brought up the credit score by a safe margin and were about to close on this house that we really wanted, but because of the issue with the first report, the lending company ordered reports from the two other major reporting agencies. The information that they had contradicted the first report, had her living in a different state and had her loaded with debt. To make a long story a little shorter, we didn't get the house, and the discrepencies haven't been altered by any one of the reporting agencies. On another note, my credit report shows me working in different states at a variety of jobs too. There's unaccounted debt on my reports too, and I refuse to pay a penny to any creditor until I can get an accurate accounting of my credit history. Something that's impossible to do here in Capitalist America, and before someone busts a nut, NO, Capitalism in and of itself isn't bad, it's just the way we use it so irresponsibly here that makes it seem so evil. I can't get credit because of inaccurate information and I can't have it removed because the investigations don't tell you shit. I've since given up hope that the credit system will ever be ironed out. I did find someone in Experion that will wipe your credit history clean for 250 bucks, but that was after I quit trying to clear my name. I guess this current rant was brought on by the fact that my insurance company denied me an excellent rating because of my credit problems even though I have an excellent driving record. In conclusion, you're still very young, and the woes of credit have yet to knock on your door. Just remember this idyllic time when you thought you had some control over the situation with fondness. As for raising the minimum wage, the big businesses will love it, another justified reason to exaggerate prices. We're only paying around 400 to 1400 % of what it costs to make the shit in the first place. I'm getting grumpy, I think I need to go to bed. Good luck with economics and politics. If I was a religious sort, I'd pray for your soul.
I'm going to ignore the economic arguments against corporations/minimum wage. I've had this same debate about 8 times in the last week, and its starting to bore me. *I'm in Canada and unfamiliar with the American system. For the New Orleans hurricane survivors: How is this possibly not their fault. Assuming you are referring to people whose houses were destroyed, how is this not their fault. If you are going to borrow to buy a house, BELOW SEA LEVEL, and not insure it against floods for at least the amount you owe, this falls under the category of one's own fault. As for your wife: This falls under the category of choosing a bad person to co-sign with. Is it a little fucked up? Yes. But I'd still say the majority of fault lies with her. As for errors: Maybe they are that common in the US, but in Canada, I've seen little of the sort. What I do know is that my bank offered me the loan when I was considering buying a house in my hometown when prices were cheap. They gave me a line of credit far bigger than I need. And I've never had any problems with getting credit cards, which also gave me a limit far bigger than I need. I don't think the system is as corrupt as you think. Banks want to lend you money - it's how they make their own. They simply have to find someway to consider whether or not you are a risk, and so far, I haven't seen any better way than credit.
I would. I'd be renting out an apartment to make money, not for some belief in affordable housing. A credit check is a decent way to ensure that your tenant will pay you, because a tenant can fuck a landlord over (at least in Canada).
Someone explain to me how a country can operate in deficit mode, yet still be held as a world power? Yet the little man can be passed over for employment if he has a bad credit rating.
.................................................................................................... Cryptoman: Your Lender sucks. Any stipulation of divorce should absolve you of the debt. Its up to Lender interpertiation, not the credit agencies. You would have got the deal with my place. Lenders need to order a Tri-merge straight on before collecting a dime from you at application. I'd blame the Lender. Why pull credit at the 11th hour? Equifax, Trans Union and Experian all have interactive web sites where you can dispute, amend and tend to credit. You gotta buy thier $9 report tho. The truly credit challenged should go on those sites to tend to credit once a year. The biggest problem seen are: same name credit bleed; If you've got a name like Smith or Jones or Patel, you will get other peoples shit on to your record, some of it good, some of it bad. The second is come-back debt: Imagine you have gone to the web site and scrubbed your record. Collection agencies will re-report and old collection account and its back; they hope to get bought off. The Credit Agencies are just reporting what is told to them by thier subscribers. You can elect to pay credit agencies an annual fee to apy attention to this crap, its not a whole lot. They don't do it for free. Yeah, you are your score here in America. It can be liberating and a tyrany at the same time. Thats really not any more perverse than You are what you drive, or you are your house or cloths or anything else.
So, the people that had insurance, that had to wait for months for the damage to be assessed were responsible for not having the resources to cope with a natural disaster, when assured that the levies were safe? I agree with you on the point that you shouldn't believe everything that the government tells you, but there are some people that had owned property there for years before the flooding became such a problem. I guess theres an entire country out there that should just be eliminated by your way of thinking. Have you ever heard of the Netherlands? 27% of the Netherlands is below sea level with the sea encroaching all the time. Are they insured against flood? Most likely, but what would they do until the insurance companies paid them...if they decided to pay them at all? As for New Orleans, I guess you missed the broadcast. It wasn't just the flooded areas that were evacuated...it was the whole city. There were parts of the city that were relatively unaffected that were evacuated and blocked off for months before being reopened. If you can't have compassion for someone that lost their job and home to a natural disaster, when neither were physically affected, I daresay you'll make a fine politician someday, Canada (America Light) is ripe for this sort of direction. Pardon the sarcasm, but your naivety bores me. I seriously hope you don't have to wake up to the reality of the world too soon. Childhood is such an innocent time. I long for the days...sigh... And Gardener, it's called hypocrisy...the synonym is government.
Thanks for the info Piney. This is the kind of info that I'm looking for, I'm just tired of dealing with dumbasses. I just want to go live in a mud hut in Bloivia sometimes and quit this struggle.
Oh, and as for the house, it's long gone. We lost an awesome deal because of the system and thats part of what started this whole thing. That and the increased insurance rate...sigh...
What troubles me is that our Goverment Lending Agencies ( FHLMC, FNMA, HUD/FHA ) continue to give home loans to areas threatened by these disasters. They lend on barrier island beaches under hurricane threat. I'd like to see less risk underwritten by the Goverment.
"A DEBT-FREE AMERICA" "With debt-free and interest-free money, there would be no high and confiscatory taxation, our homes would be mortgage free with no $10,000-a-year payments to the Bankers, nor would they get $1,000 to $2,500 per year for every automobile on our roads. We would need no "easy payment" plans, "revolving" charge accounts, loans to pay medical or hospital bills, loans to pay taxes, loans to pay for burials , loans to pay loans, nor any of the thousand and one usuary-bearing loans which now suck the life-blood out American families. There would be no unemplyment, divorces caused by debt, destitute old people, or mounting crime, and even the so-called "deprived" classes would be deprived or neither job nor money to buy the necessities of life." "Criminals could not become poilicians, nor would politicians become criminals in the pay of Money-lenders. Our officials, at all government levels, would be working for the people instead of devising means to spend more money to place us further in debt to the Bankers. We would get out of the entangling foreign alliances that have engulfed us in four major wars and scores of minor wars since the Federal Reserve Act was passed, alliances which are now used to prevent America from preparing her own defense in the face of mounting danger from alien powers." "A debt-free America would mean mothers would not have to work. With mother at home, juvenile delinquency would decrease rapidly. The elimination of the usuary and debt would be the equivalent of a 50% raise in the purchasing power of every worker. With this cancellation of all debts, the return to the people of all the property and wealth the parasitic Bankers and their quasi-legal agents have stolen by usuary and fraud, and the ending of their theft of $300 Billion (or more) every year from the people, America would be prosperous and powerful beyond the wildest dreams of its citizens today. And we would be at peace!" QUOTED FROM: "Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People" By Pastor Sheldon Emery (1926-1985) LINK: www.321gold.com/mustread/billions.html This is just one excellant article from a long list of articles on "Banking & Money Paper" from ILLUMINATI-NEWS.COM. LINK: www.illuminati-news.com/banking.htm An interesting article is entitled: "I Want The Earth Plus 5%" (Copyright Larry Hannigan 1971, Australia) LINK: www.relfe.com/plus_5_.html This is a comic book-type article which describes how the barter system evolved into the money system, the debt system and finally into a NWO dictatorship of power and greed. The DEBT system is simply a LEGALIZED form of thievery, to create a form of the ancient FEUDAL SYSTEM, where a small, powerful elite rules over a population of poor slaves (SERFS). A middle-class does not exist. SOCIALISM is where just a middle-class exists, like in the Scandinavian coiuntries (who have a high standard of living). The debt system just creates humongous amounts of money for a few controlling bankers, who buy up and own everything. People are left with nothing! "If the American people ever allow PRIVATE banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks will deprive The People of all property until their children wake-up HOMELESS on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to The People, to whom it properly belongs." "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." ---Thomas Jefferson "This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth." ---Alan Greenspan "Give me control over a nation's currency, and I care not who makes its laws." ---Amschel Rothschild (1743 - 1812) "The Bank of "England" was chartereed in1694 in order to wrest the New World from the mother country and create a RIVAL power to Great Britain. This was to implement the Bull of Borgia." -Reformation.org- "Money being taken from people who are working hard providing the material and the labor. They don't even know that this is being taken from them and it's in this huge river of wealth flowing into the banking cartel. It's a staggering thought." "You are led to the question of where is this river flowing? Where 's it going? Get a picture of this that it's all going into a lake somewhere and maybe there's a dam and the wealth is building up and somwhere they're getting it all. Getting it no, they're spending it. They're not accumulating it at all. What are they spending it for? The answer may suprise you. They're not buying more yachts and mansions with this money, they've already got all of those they possibly want. In fact they got rid of the mansions on Jekyll Island a long time ago because they were bored with that. That's not it. When a person has all the wealth that you could possibly want for the material pleasures of life, what is left? Power. They are using this river of wealth to acquire power over you and me and our children." "They are spending it to acquire control over the power centers of society. The power centers are those groups and institutions through which individuals live and act and rely on for their information. They are literally buying up the world but not the real estate and the hardware, they're buying control over organizations, the groups and institutions that control people." T"he process has gone on not only to a marked degree in America and in the other industrialized nations of the world, but it has gone on in the so-called third world or undeveloped nations to such a degree that I would say the process is now complete. They own these countries already." "What I'm trying to say is that the name of the game out there is not wealth, it is power." "The creature from Jekyll Island, the Federal Reserve, talk by Edward Griffin." LINK: www.bigeye.com/griffin.htm "With its bizarre claim to have been found in a surplus IBM copy machine in 1986 by a Boeing Aicraft employee, Silent Weapons for Quite Wars takes it place among those dubious 'elite blueprints' for control of the planet." "Hartford Van Dyke, author of Silent Weapons for Quite Wars." "Silent Weapons for Quite Wars (Excerpt and Introduction)" LINK: www.whale.to/b/dyke.html "TOP SECRET" "Silent Weapons for Quite Wars" "Operations Research Technical Manual TM-SW7905.1" "MR. ROTHSCHILD'S ENErGY DISCOVERY" "What Mr. Rothschild had discovered was the basic principle of power, influence, and control over people as applied to economics. The principle is "when you assume the appearance of power, people soon give it to you." Mr. Rothschild had discovered that currency or deposit loan accounts had the required appearance of power that could be used to induce people (inductance, with people corresponding to a magnetic field) into surrendering their real wealth in exchange for a promise of greater wealth (instead of real compensation). They would put up real collateral in exchange for a loan of promissory notes." "Mr. Rothschild found that he could issue more notes than he had backing for, so long as he had someone's stock of gold as a persuader to show to his customers. Mr. Rothschild loaned his promissory notes to individuals and to governments. These would create overconfidence. Then he would make money scarce, tighten control of the system, and collect the collateral through the obligation of contracts. The cycle was then repeated. These pressures could be used to ignite a war. That government which agreed to give him control of its economic system got his support. Collection of debts was guaranteed by economic aid to the enemy of the debtor. The profit derived from this economic methodology made Mr. Rothschild all the more able to extend his wealth. He found that the public greed would allow currency to be printed by government order beyond the limits (inflation) of backing in precious metal or the production of goods and services (gross national product, GNP). "Silent Weapons for Quite Wars - The Lawful Path" LINK: http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml Is money the root of all evil? Or is it just the DEBT system? Or is it just some men's lust for greed and power? EGO satisfaction?
cosmic dust - quoting conspiracy theory websites doesn't change anybody's mind. Ask Rat; he's been doing it for years.
For those who might be interested: If you challenge something on your credit report then the credit reporting agency contacts the company that claims that you screwed them. If the company that has reported you chooses to then they may agree to a court date to present their evidence to a judge. On amounts less than $500 the company has nothing to gain (lawyers fee's). In the vast majority of these cases the company will not contest your challenge and the item will be removed from your credit report all together. On amounts over $1000 I can only assume that this won't work. I have however disputed a claim that was for about $100. The company, of course, decided noty to pay their lawyer to go to court and it was off my credit report within a couple of weeks. I did in fact owe them the money by the way.
