AboveAverage

OC doesn't own my account--yet always verifies on CR

Recommended Posts

It's fair if it's accurate data IMAHO.

Obviously, howerver, there can be only one debt owner at a time so, if two JDBs are reporting; one has to be reporting data they have no right to report.

Well I guess thats something we will always disagree on.

1 bad debt should = 1 bad TL

Do I get 2 or 3 good TL's for 1 payment that I have always made on time?

BTW- I did get the 3 TLs down to 1 for that debt. But I had to do a little work to do it and the cost of the CMRR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I guess thats something we will always disagree on.

1 bad debt should = 1 bad TL

The banks and the CRAs that make the reporting rules think differently.

Robs facts are spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I guess that's really how I should have answered...what I think is "fair" really isn't the issue; it's what the law says can be reported that matters.

Look Robert, as I told someone else on this forum, "Real recognizes real". I have always been an advocate of keeping it real.

The truth of the matter is this...people get over on the system all the time. But I am not even talking about the consumer (who, I believe should get over all the time, but the fact of the matter is, he won't).

But when the consumer [debtor] does get over on the system, why hate? The system/rules were written so that we should have a fighting chance on having this clean slate. I'm a firm believer of that. At the SAME time though, I am also a firm believer in not pushing one's luck.

I don't plan on f'ing over my current creditors. When I was a kid (and by "kid", I mean 18/19/20/21/etc...til about maybe 24), I really didn't know any better. Managing my finances was simply not important to me as getting laid was. I was young and stupid. If companies are allowed to use loopholes in the system, than why can't we? Else, really, WT(x) are we doing here? Really....WT(x).

I don't want to repeat those mistakes again...in part because I now know better and also too I see that it was wrong. But there are folks here who were messed up than me. Hell, for all of my mess ups, I never had to file BK. Yet there are many a venerable poster who felt the need to. I don't crap on them, nor would I dare to. If anything, I applaud anyone who can turn a messed up part of their life and do what they need to do to succeed in the world.

So if I, or anyone else for that matter, had a opportunity to turn a lemon into lemonade...why not take it?

That's what I want to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The truth of the matter is this...people get over on the system all the time. But I am not even talking about the consumer (who, I believe should get over all the time, but the fact of the matter is, he won't).

Many people do “get over” the system but definitely not all the time and saying that a consumer “should” get over the system all the time is, in my always humble opinion, not that much different than saying a person should “get over” on any other of the laws we use to govern ourselves.

But when the consumer [debtor] does get over on the system, why hate?

Hate? It’s strange what passes for “hate” these days…is it hatred to point out what the law says or to hold a strong opinion about what the law says? It seems to have gotten pretty common today for people to throw around emotionally charged words like “hate” simply because of a difference of viewpoint – I find that rather sad.

The system/rules were written so that we should have a fighting chance on having this clean slate. I'm a firm believer of that. At the SAME time though, I am also a firm believer in not pushing one's luck.

The rules were not written so that we could have a “clean slate” or to allow us to “clean our slate “and I really don’t know what you base your statement on.

Had Congress wanted that, they could easily have required negative tradelines be expunged rather than simply requiring accuracy; which is all they do require along with providing tools to help the consumer ensure accuracy; the time limit on how long information can be reported is as close to a “clean slate” as we get. Frankly, it’s also all we deserve.

The primary use for credit histories is to serve the needs of businesses who are trying to decide on whether to extend credit to a consumer…to be blunt, I don’t want non-creditworthy individuals getting credit extended to them. But if individuals are able to re-write their poor credit histories into a fantasy; getting credit they probably shouldn’t is a very real risk; a risk everyone else pays for in the form of higher costs.

No one is required to live with their financial mistakes forever; but living with them for a few years is not a bad thing…the pain of failure is what most often drives those who experience it to succeed later (something our entire Federal government has seemed to have forgotten of late).

I don't want to repeat those mistakes again...in part because I now know better and also too I see that it was wrong. But there are folks here who were messed up than me. Hell, for all of my mess ups, I never had to file BK. Yet there are many a venerable poster who felt the need to. I don't crap on them, nor would I dare to. If anything, I applaud anyone who can turn a messed up part of their life and do what they need to do to succeed in the world.

Who is beating up on them and how are they being beaten? If you are referring to my reply to jjgross I strongly reject your characterization.

No one is being “beaten up on” for having filed a bankruptcy nor is expecting the filing to be reflected on his/her credit report for the proscribed time unreasonable.

xburnoutx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I learned something new from my Federal Government...if you are a business that is TOO big to fail, but yet does, socialism is ok and the government will trash the capitalist playbook. The government will buy your bad debts if you have too many billions or even trillions in assets and everybody can high-five each and/or do some other Sodom and Gomorrah-type stuff.

Yeah, Robert....it's ok for financial companies to mess up because hey, the US will bail them out, but meanwhile the debtor can't get that same relief because we somehow don't contribute to the economy the same way those companies do...even though you and I know that can't possibly make sense. The fact that something is law today doesn't mean it's right. In fact it will probably change as soon as consumer advocacy groups start to matter (read: give more money to those that matter). Until then, we got this I guess.

BTW, I never said you were beating up on those who filed for BK. I was just saying that BK is something I would personally avoid like the plague, but I know there are folks who were able to go through BK and have financial redemption.

As for the word "hate", I guess I've been in the urban setting way too long. Even that word gets desensitized. Because really, I didn't even make it so charged as you did. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes I learned something new from my Federal Government...if you are a business that is TOO big to fail, but yet does, socialism is ok and the government will trash the capitalist playbook. The government will buy your bad debts if you have too many billions or even trillions in assets and everybody can high-five each and/or do some other Sodom and Gomorrah-type stuff.

Yeah, Robert....it's ok for financial companies to mess up because hey, the US will bail them out, but meanwhile the debtor can't get that same relief because we somehow don't contribute to the economy the same way those companies do...even though you and I know that can't possibly make sense. The fact that something is law today doesn't mean it's right. In fact it will probably change as soon as consumer advocacy groups start to matter (read: give more money to those that matter). Until then, we got this I guess.

BTW, I never said you were beating up on those who filed for BK. I was just saying that BK is something I would personally avoid like the plague, but I know there are folks who were able to go through BK and have financial redemption.

As for the word "hate", I guess I've been in the urban setting way too long. Even that word gets desensitized. Because really, I didn't even make it so charged as you did. :)

Robert i don't feel beat up it's just when your backs to the wall you have to do what you have to do.I didn't want to file bk and lose everything house 401k etc.Thats not your problem.I wasn't rewarded for driving myself bk.If corps were held to the same standards as i was then the ceo would be held accounable as i was.Your opinon of bk is important to express however at the sametime there has be a understanding of what it doe's to a persons life some people recover and do very well and some people don't so every 10 years they file agin that's the people who you have issue with as i have issue with them.But in the end mine or your opinon doesn't mean anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robert i don't feel beat up it's just when your backs to the wall you have to do what you have to do.I didn't want to file bk and lose everything house 401k etc.Thats not your problem.I wasn't rewarded for driving myself bk.If corps were held to the same standards as i was then the ceo would be held accounable as i was.Your opinon of bk is important to express however at the sametime there has be a understanding of what it doe's to a persons life some people recover and do very well and some people don't so every 10 years they file agin that's the people who you have issue with as i have issue with them.But in the end mine or your opinon doesn't mean anything.

I have no problem with anyone filing bankruptcy who needs to do so...that's why the law is there; a law which I used in '84 at the end of a very bitter divorce.

I too hope that the stockholders (assuming there are any private stockholders left once the dust settles) do start to hold the leaders of failed businesses accountable for their greed, corruption and abject lack of leadership ability rather than awarding them with mega-million dollar salaries and exit packages (perhaps some will be getting an exit package that involves some stainless connected bracelets). :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no problem with anyone filing bankruptcy who needs to do so...that's why the law is there; a law which I use in '84 at the end of a very bitter divorce.

I too hope that the stockholders (assuming there are any private stockholders left once the dust settles) do start to hold the leaders of failed businesses accountable for their greed, corruptiion and abject lack of leadership ability rather than awarding them with mega-million dollar salaries and exit packages (perhaps some will be gettng an exit package that involves some stainless connected bracelets). :)

I Know they destroy many lives through the loss of penisons, health insurance etc,Send them to max security then they'll know how it is to be screwed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I Know they destroy many lives through the loss of penisons, health insurance etc,Send them to max security then they'll know how it is to be screwed

You need to watch that one Dave Chapelle White Collar Crime sketch from the Dave Chapelle Show (circa 2004). Pretty much reverses the justice system for white collor crime and drug dealers. Pretty much LMAO...especially when the judge dispensed certain advice to the white collar criminal.

Was trying to find it on youtube, but could only find the one part of the sketch when the drug dealer played by Chapelle "pleads the fif". That whole sketch was funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.