Home Page link  

OT - Bank of America Credit

 

Quicken Personal Finance Discussions - Quicken - personal finance software discussions

 Post an article  get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content  add this group's latest topics to your Google content  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
OT - Bank of America Credit L 02-27-2007
Posted by Steve Scott on March 2, 2007, 9:03 am
Please log in for more thread options
I think that's my point. And they, the CC companies and shareholders,
should pay for that irresponsibility, not the cardholders.


>
>> In any other business it would be considered highly irresponsible to
>> solicit business from those who can not or will not pay their bills.
>>
>
>You mean that credit card comapnies and banks are "responsible"? That's
>laughable ...


--
Brain: The apparatus with which we
think that we think.





Posted by SpammersDie on March 1, 2007, 10:16 pm
Please log in for more thread options

> Agreed. And the companies themselves should suffer the consequences
> for the remaining non-recoverable debt. Not the rest of their
> consumers.

It's up to the consumers to make that happen. If the company's competitors
do a better job of controlling costs due to bad loans, consumers can move to
them.

If there are no such competitors and there's no evidence of antitrust
activity by the existing players, it's a good sign consumers are too
apathetic to care, in which case, the free market is still working
correctly. It has found the right balance between the extreme of having one
financial mistake turn you into a credit pariah for life vs. the other
extreme of having 10% of the debtors paying for the irresponsibility of the
other 90%.






Posted by Andrew DeFaria on March 1, 2007, 11:19 pm
Please log in for more thread options
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020306050602050100010204
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Steve Scott wrote:
> Agreed. And the companies themselves should suffer the consequences
> for the remaining non-recoverable debt. Not the rest of their consumers.
No it's the deadbeats who should suffer the consequences as much as
possible.
> In any other business it would be considered highly irresponsible to
> solicit business from those who can not or will not pay their bills.
Really? Which other businesses. Here's a clue: It's done all the time in
most businesses.
--
Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
All that glitters has a high refractive index.

--------------020306050602050100010204
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Steve Scott wrote:
<blockquote cite="midl03fu2t9umjfh5mk85l4huet65blid5325@4ax.com"
type="cite">Agreed. And the companies themselves should suffer the
consequences for the remaining non-recoverable debt. Not the rest of
their consumers.<br>
</blockquote>
No it's the deadbeats who should suffer the consequences as much as
possible.<br>
<blockquote cite="midl03fu2t9umjfh5mk85l4huet65blid5325@4ax.com"
type="cite">In any other business it would be considered highly
irresponsible to solicit business from those who can not or will not
pay their bills.<br>
</blockquote>
Really? Which other businesses. Here's a clue: It's done all the time
in most businesses.<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<a href="http://defaria.com">Andrew DeFaria</a><br>
<small><font color="#999999">All that glitters has a high refractive
index.</font></small>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--------------020306050602050100010204--

Posted by Steve Scott on March 2, 2007, 10:22 am
Please log in for more thread options
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:19:24 -0600, Andrew DeFaria

>Steve Scott wrote:
>> Agreed. And the companies themselves should suffer the consequences
>> for the remaining non-recoverable debt. Not the rest of their consumers.
>No it's the deadbeats who should suffer the consequences as much as
>possible.

I'm not sure if you're dense or just playing dense. AFTER the
deadbeats have every drop of blood wrung from their miserable bodies
and AFTER their children have been sold into servitude and AFTER
anyone who has ever known them has had their assets stripped from
them, there is STILL unpaid debt. That is what I'm talking about.
Clear enough now?

I'm of the opinion the CC companies should be eating that debt to the
detriment of the company and their shareholders, rather than passing
it along to their other CC holders.

That doesn't seem to me to be all that hard to understand.

>> In any other business it would be considered highly irresponsible to
>> solicit business from those who can not or will not pay their bills.
>Really? Which other businesses. Here's a clue: It's done all the time in
>most businesses.

My business certainly couldn't thrive if I solicit work from people
who won't or can't pay me. I know Wal-Mart won't let me come in and
buy items from it unless they get paid right then. Just which
businesses, other than CC companies, solicit business from those who
will not or can't pay them?

--
Brain: The apparatus with which we
think that we think.





Posted by Andrew DeFaria on March 2, 2007, 10:48 am
Please log in for more thread options
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080108010301030407080702
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Steve Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:19:24 -0600, Andrew DeFaria
>> Steve Scott wrote:
>>> Agreed. And the companies themselves should suffer the consequences
>>> for the remaining non-recoverable debt. Not the rest of their consumers.
>> No it's the deadbeats who should suffer the consequences as much as
>> possible.
> I'm not sure if you're dense or just playing dense. AFTER the
> deadbeats have every drop of blood wrung from their miserable bodies
> and AFTER their children have been sold into servitude and AFTER
> anyone who has ever known them has had their assets stripped from
> them, there is STILL unpaid debt. That is what I'm talking about.
> Clear enough now?
I'm not dense, we're just talking about different things. Nowhere
heretofore was it said "after this" and "after that". I am, of course,
talking about "before this" and "before that". IOW what's happening in
the real world and the reason why Congress tightened up the bankruptcy
laws and all.

Perhaps you were trying to be funny (and failing I might add) but many
of the things listed above are illegal. You do know that don't you?
> I'm of the opinion the CC companies should be eating that debt to the
> detriment of the company and their shareholders, rather than passing
> it along to their other CC holders.
No business does this. Why should CC companies?
> That doesn't seem to me to be all that hard to understand.
But extremely difficult to find in the real world. Name another company
that does what you propose as opposed to simply raise their prices and
I'll show you a company that will soon be out of business...
>>> In any other business it would be considered highly irresponsible to
>>> solicit business from those who can not or will not pay their bills.
>> Really? Which other businesses. Here's a clue: It's done all the time
>> in most businesses.
> My business certainly couldn't thrive if I solicit work from people
> who won't or can't pay me. I know Wal-Mart won't let me come in and
> buy items from it unless they get paid right then. Just which
> businesses, other than CC companies, solicit business from those who
> will not or can't pay them?
Banks, Car companies and their associated loan arms, contractors,
plumbers, doctors, lawyers, department stores. In short any business
extending credit. Granted you never know if they really can't or won't
pay their bills just as you don't really know ahead of time that the
eventual CC deadbeats can't or won't pay their bills.
--
Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
Love is always bestowed as a gift - freely, willingly and without
expectation. We don't love to be loved; we love to love. - Leo Buscaglia

--------------080108010301030407080702
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Steve Scott wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid29ggu2djjh12metps497ske2leoskkoft3@4ax.com"
type="cite">On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:19:24 -0600, Andrew DeFaria
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
<blockquote type="cite">Steve Scott wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Agreed. And the companies themselves should
suffer the consequences for the remaining non-recoverable debt. Not the
rest of their consumers.<br>
</blockquote>
No it's the deadbeats who should suffer the consequences as much as
possible.<br>
</blockquote>
<!---->I'm not sure if you're dense or just playing dense. AFTER the
deadbeats have every drop of blood wrung from their miserable bodies
and AFTER their children have been sold into servitude and AFTER anyone
who has ever known them has had their assets stripped from them, there
is STILL unpaid debt. That is what I'm talking about. Clear enough now?
<br>
</blockquote>
I'm not dense, we're just talking about different things. Nowhere
heretofore was it said "after this" and "after that". I am, of course,
talking about "before this" and "before that". IOW what's happening in
the real world and the reason why Congress tightened up the bankruptcy
laws and all.<br>
<br>
Perhaps you were trying to be funny (and failing I might add) but many
of the things listed above are illegal. You do know that don't you?<br>
<blockquote cite="mid29ggu2djjh12metps497ske2leoskkoft3@4ax.com"
type="cite">I'm of the opinion the CC companies should be eating that
debt to the detriment of the company and their shareholders, rather
than passing it along to their other CC holders.<br>
</blockquote>
No business does this. Why should CC companies?<br>
<blockquote cite="mid29ggu2djjh12metps497ske2leoskkoft3@4ax.com"
type="cite">That doesn't seem to me to be all that hard to understand.<br>
</blockquote>
But extremely difficult to find in the real world. Name another company
that does what you propose as opposed to simply raise their prices and
I'll show you a company that will soon be out of business...<br>
<blockquote cite="mid29ggu2djjh12metps497ske2leoskkoft3@4ax.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">In any other business it would be
considered highly irresponsible to solicit business from those who can
not or will not pay their bills.<br>
</blockquote>
Really? Which other businesses. Here's a clue: It's done all the time
in&nbsp; most businesses.<br>
</blockquote>
My business certainly couldn't thrive if I solicit work from people who
won't or can't pay me. I know Wal-Mart won't let me come in and buy
items from it unless they get paid right then. Just which businesses,
other than CC companies, solicit business from those who will not or
can't pay them?<br>
</blockquote>
Banks, Car companies and their associated loan arms, contractors,
plumbers, doctors, lawyers, department stores. In short any business
extending credit. Granted you never know if they really can't or won't
pay their bills just as you don't really know ahead of time that the
eventual CC deadbeats can't or won't pay their bills.<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<a href="http://defaria.com">Andrew DeFaria</a><br>
<small><font color="#999999">Love is always bestowed as a gift -
freely, willingly and without expectation. We don't love to be loved;
we love to love. - Leo Buscaglia</font></small>
</div>
</body>
</html>

--------------080108010301030407080702--

Similar ThreadsPosted
Bank of America Credit Card November 16, 2006, 8:41 pm
Bank of America credit card and Q2004 September 9, 2006, 12:07 pm
Bank of America Credit Card Updates in WA August 12, 2008, 1:51 pm
Bank of America shouldn't mess with its customers credit report October 7, 2006, 3:19 pm
Bank of America - No longer down loading recent credit card transactions.... March 4, 2007, 6:02 pm
Bank of America credit card downloads-dropped transactions issue May 29, 2007, 7:07 am
Bill Pay with Bank of America - CA April 27, 2007, 11:46 pm
Did Bank of America Change Something? October 22, 2007, 1:34 pm
Bank of America $9.95 monthly fee. February 11, 2008, 9:04 am
Question with Bank of America Changes September 12, 2008, 5:03 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy
This site is not affiliated with Intuit - makers of Quickbooks and Quicken software
This site is not affiliated with Sage Software - makers of Peachtree accounting software
XML SitemapXML Sitemap