- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: To Whom Should I Send My Thanks?
Posted on 10/9/09 at 2:45 pm to MileHigh
Posted on 10/9/09 at 2:45 pm to MileHigh
I mean it's ridiculous to argue it's a matter of conscience - particularly in light of the information offered in this thread. We've seen EXACTLY how much "conscience" the credit card companies have. To argue that there is some moral duty to them is beyond absurd.
1
Posted on 10/9/09 at 2:47 pm to Tiger JJ
quote:I would expect for you to have those personal values.
To argue that there is some moral duty to them is beyond absurd.
Posted on 10/9/09 at 2:50 pm to LSURussian
You act like these people who are defaulting have all sorts of money and are just choosing not to give it to the credit card companies because they are evil and greedy. The fact is, they don't.
Now if you want to say people are stupid for taking out loans they can't afford, then yeah. By the same token the CC companies are stupid for lending money to people who aren't likely to be able to pay it back.
But you seem to act like there's some high moral duty to repay the credit card companies. There's a high moral duty to provide for your family's needs. If someone is given the choice between providing for their family's needs and paying their credit card company; and they choose to pay the credit card? I would say that's an affirmatively immoral choice.
Now if you want to say people are stupid for taking out loans they can't afford, then yeah. By the same token the CC companies are stupid for lending money to people who aren't likely to be able to pay it back.
But you seem to act like there's some high moral duty to repay the credit card companies. There's a high moral duty to provide for your family's needs. If someone is given the choice between providing for their family's needs and paying their credit card company; and they choose to pay the credit card? I would say that's an affirmatively immoral choice.
This post was edited on 10/9/09 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 10/9/09 at 2:52 pm to LSURussian
quote:
I would expect for you to have those personal values.
I'm quite proud of my personal value of not treating a credit card company like a member of my family (particularly given the specific knowledge as provided in this thread that credit card companies are happy to treat people in the most Machiavellian way possible.)
I like to save treating people like family members for, you know, my actual family members.
Posted on 10/9/09 at 2:54 pm to Tiger JJ
So your word is good only when you give it to family members? Got it... 
Posted on 10/9/09 at 2:58 pm to LSURussian
You're avoiding the question, which I should guess isn't a surprise. Because if you actually addressed the question you'd have to admit that you were wrong.
You're operating on the assumption that people have enough money to make good all their obligations when this is just obviously not true. My contention is, if you have to default on one obligation, it's better to default on your obligation to Chase National Bank than it is to your family. If you were going to be honest you'd admit that you agree.
You're operating on the assumption that people have enough money to make good all their obligations when this is just obviously not true. My contention is, if you have to default on one obligation, it's better to default on your obligation to Chase National Bank than it is to your family. If you were going to be honest you'd admit that you agree.
Posted on 10/9/09 at 3:06 pm to Cold Cous Cous
quote:You went back and edited your above post. It originally only said "(no message)" and I didn't see that you had gone back on edited it with a post and a question until now when you said I am avoiding your question. I thought, WTF question is he talking about?!?
You're avoiding the question
Now to your stealth question: " If someone is given the choice between providing for their family's needs and paying their credit card company; and they choose to pay the credit card?"
No, I don't think that. I don't see that as the issue here. Where in this thread is your point about family obligations come first? Did I miss another stealth post?
JT has said on here that he thinks it's ok to walk away from a debt obligation if it's in his best interest to do so.
This post was edited on 10/9/09 at 3:07 pm
Posted on 10/9/09 at 3:09 pm to Cold Cous Cous
quote:
You act like these people who are defaulting have all sorts of money and are just choosing not to give it to the credit card companies because they are evil and greedy.
Where have I said anything even remotely equal to that? Which post?
I said all customers have to pay extra when someone else does not pay their CC bills, regardless of the reason they don't pay. Just like a shoplifter costs honest shoppers.
Posted on 10/9/09 at 3:19 pm to Cold Cous Cous
quote:
By the same token the CC companies are stupid for lending money to people who aren't likely to be able to pay it back.
they did this based on the reforms of 2005, where they could haunt people forever...until they pay it back. Ooops turned out to be a bad idea.
quote:
But you seem to act like there's some high moral duty to repay the credit card companies. There's a high moral duty to provide for your family's needs. If someone is given the choice between providing for their family's needs and paying their credit card company; and they choose to pay the credit card? I would say that's an affirmatively immoral choice.
Dude, you would make a really shitty banker.
Posted on 10/9/09 at 3:23 pm to MileHigh
quote:Isn't that redundant to you, MH?
shitty banker.
Posted on 10/9/09 at 3:25 pm to MileHigh
quote:
reforms of 2005, where they could haunt people forever
What are you referring to here? Each state has a SOL in place for CC debt.. How can someone haunt you forever if you have eclipsed the SOL in your state? Yea you can still owe the money but the CC companies cannot do anything about it and after 7 years it doesnt even show up on your credit.
Posted on 10/9/09 at 3:34 pm to Catman88
quote:
What are you referring to here? Each state has a SOL in place for CC debt.. How can someone haunt you forever if you have eclipsed the SOL in your state? Yea you can still owe the money but the CC companies cannot do anything about it and after 7 years it doesnt even show up on your credit.
forever was an exaggeration. I think its 8 years now.
Posted on 10/9/09 at 3:38 pm to MileHigh
quote:Thanks, I guess?
Dude, you would make a really shitty banker.
Posted on 10/9/09 at 3:40 pm to MileHigh
Oh I guess you are talking about bankruptcy..
Of course I could not pay my credit card and then manage to avoid them for 3 years in Louisana and pray they didnt sue me then I could get off scott free with only a hit on my credit report that will last 7 years. Not exactly hurting consumers that much.
Of course I could not pay my credit card and then manage to avoid them for 3 years in Louisana and pray they didnt sue me then I could get off scott free with only a hit on my credit report that will last 7 years. Not exactly hurting consumers that much.
Posted on 10/9/09 at 5:02 pm to LSURussian
This is what you said:
You didn't give any more context, nuance or texture than that. You simply said:
walking away from obligations = lack of conscience
But now you also say:
Yet your above quote CLEARLY lumps in people in this situation as "lacking conscience".
Yes he has. And certainly one such situation would be choosing between family needs and paying the credit card company. Which you don't agree with. Except of course when you imply that you do.
quote:
Pretty much. Especially people who walk away from their obligations. We all get punished for their lack of conscience.
You didn't give any more context, nuance or texture than that. You simply said:
walking away from obligations = lack of conscience
But now you also say:
quote:
Now to your stealth question: " If someone is given the choice between providing for their family's needs and paying their credit card company; and they choose to pay the credit card?"
No, I don't think that. I don't see that as the issue here.
Yet your above quote CLEARLY lumps in people in this situation as "lacking conscience".
quote:
JT has said on here that he thinks it's ok to walk away from a debt obligation if it's in his best interest to do so.
Yes he has. And certainly one such situation would be choosing between family needs and paying the credit card company. Which you don't agree with. Except of course when you imply that you do.
Posted on 10/9/09 at 5:08 pm to LSURussian
quote:
So your word is good only when you give it to family members? Got it..
Again, not repaying debt is NOT failing to make good on your word. In any credit contract, you agree to clearly stated terms of default and what the lender is and isn't allowed to do to you to make themselves whole in the event of said default - which is EXPLICITLY laid out as a possibility in advance.
It's really very simple. The borrow says by contract at the time he borrows the money: "I agree to pay you interest and principal back after borrowing this sum. If I don't, then you can come after me according to the prescriptions of this agreement".
For you to bring conscience into it is, well, irrelevant.
Posted on 10/9/09 at 7:41 pm to Catman88
quote:
Chase is starting to charge a yearly membership fee as well.
I haven't heard anything from them yet about an annual fee.
I did call both BoA and Chase asking if they have plans on charging interest from the date of purchase and they both said no.
Posted on 10/9/09 at 8:09 pm to Alley
quote:The notification Chase sent to me this week also didn't mention this.
I did call both BoA and Chase asking if they have plans on charging interest from the date of purchase and they both said no.
Posted on 10/9/09 at 8:54 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
Us responsible folk have been subsidized for years by people who probably shouldn't even have a credit card. The free ride is over.
Is anyone dumb enough to believe this BS?
I certainly hope not.
Posted on 10/9/09 at 10:34 pm to tigernchicago
quote:
Us responsible folk have been subsidized for years by people who probably shouldn't even have a credit card. The free ride is over.
quote:theres absolutely truth in the original statement.
Is anyone dumb enough to believe this BS?
I certainly hope not.
This post was edited on 10/9/09 at 10:35 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News