"lezlers tale of the evil boyfriend and mean spirited restaraunt industry seems to be whining drivel. "
Well, it isn’t. She’s simply stating what happened. There’s nothing whiny about it at all. She’s letting you know that no matter how responsible a person is, something things are beyond one’s control.
“After all, he has no money to pay.”
If he has no money, he has no money. Calling him all the names in the world won’t help any. Sure, he was foolish for doing what he did, but that doesn’t make him someone that you can just dismiss as a “scumbag”. Besides, had he won the lottery, he would have paid. That doesn’t sound like a “scumbag” to me.
“You see, that is where the difference is. To me, a person can be a scumbag without intent. You all seem to think that bad intentions are required for a debtor to be a scumbag.”
Seem to think? /I/ know it. A person who honestly DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY IS NOT A SCUMBAG, no matter how self-righteous you clearly are.
Lezlers:
“Using your definition, anyone who makes a mistake in judgement at any point in their lives is a scumbag.”
I think people like Debaser expect perfection and expect everyone to think perfectly every single second of the day. If you deviate, you are no longer human for you have wandered into “The Scumbag Zone” where you are just a “thing” to be harassed and spoken to as if you were nothing. And then wonder why some people tend to avoid bill collecters.
“Yeah, a lack in judgement made without bad intent is called a mistake.”
Oh, I know what Debaser’s argument will be. “Well, you’re supposed to learn from mistakes” or “well, they should have been more careful” as if that will change the past or something. Of course a wise person would learn from their mistakes, but I certainly don’t think it justifies Debaser’s behavior. That’s why I just HAD to jump in this. heheh
Even if she answered “you’re supposed to learn from mistakes” that wouldn’t make a difference.
#1. I did learn. I have not had so much as one late payment in the past 2 years, I have a savings account I can dip into if anything were to happen now, and I rent my own apartment and am dependent on no one but myself.
Of course, in her eyes, I’m still a scumbag. Because I found myself in a bad situation. Not a girl who made a mistake in judgement. No no, a SCUMBAG
#2. She said herself, it’s not what the person does afterwards that makes them a scumbag, it’s the fact that they got themselves into the situation in the first place.
Therefore, it doesn’t matter how you got yourself out of the situation, or if you learned anything at all. The fact that you were even in the situation to begin with, makes you a scumbag.
And she sits there doe-eyed, wondering why everyone hates her in this thread. :rolleyes:
See, there’s your problem right there, lezlers. You didn’t place proper importance on your phone. Why, if you didn’t have a telephone, bill collectors couldn’t call! And obviously that would bring the world to a screeching halt. According to Debaser, anyway.
Debaser, I think the essential point that’s bothering folks in this thread is the concept of “innocent until proven guilty.” I realize that’s a legal deal, and not really applicable in the stuff we’re talking about, but it’s a concept most Americans agree with. What you’re doing, with your constant “scumbag” characterizations, is automatically assuming the debtors with charged-off accounts are all the same. They’re all equally guilty to you. Your hypotheticals are sad attempts to justify this belief.
You seem to keep missing the point that lezlers (for example) paid her bills. She didn’t pay them in a timely enough fashion to avoid them going into collections, but she paid them. That, to me, is not the behavior of a scumbag.
And for the record, here’s my take on “Bob,” your friendly imaginary debtor. Bob was a naive idiot to think he could pay off his credit cards with lottering winnings he didn’t have. At that point, he’s not a scumbag. Once he starts avoiding his responsibility to pay, then yes, he becomes a scumbag (to use your terminology). It’s possible to make a mistake and go into debt without being a scumbag. How you deal with the situation once it reaches that point determines your level of scumbagginess. In my opinion.
As a side note, I have known a couple of people who had debts that went into collections that never paid them off. They fully intended to, but after dealing with a bunch of Debasser like bottom feeder collection agents they get pissed off, and decide screw it, they arent gonna pay back anything.
Let me get this straight: you have just spent the better part of three pages on this thread refusing to accept that debtors might get into trouble due to innocent mistakes or due to being misled by someone else. And you have consistently restated your lack of interest in debtors’ personal experiences as possible mitigating factor in their financial circumstances.
Having taken that attitude, you now expect everyone to believe that there is a law permitting the type of nearby messaging that you practiced, just because you say there is and your former employers said so too?
And you expect us to believe this despite the fact that more than one person on this thread has gone through the relevant federal legislation with the express intention of finding such a clause, and has found no such clause?
Now, i concede that i am no lawyer, and that my interpretation of the Act may be in error, or that there could indeed be some other legislation of which i am unaware that does indeed permit you to use a debtor’s neighbour as a de facto answering service.
But if that is the case, maybe you or someone else could point me in the right direction? Because i think i am going to adopt your own mistrusting attitude here and say that just because you’ve come up with some whiny story about having a piece of paper on your desk at work, doesn’t mean that either you or the debt collection companies you worked for aren’t just spinning a load of crap to serve your own selfish interests. And that would make you both scumbags, by your definition and mine.
OK, ummm, so Debaser doesn’t hold the only key to gross generalizations. Most of my teenaged friends of the female persuasion were not stupid and naaive, but hey- who am I to judge, right? I’ve never met all of the teenage girls out there (unfortunately!), maybe they are mostly dim-wits.
Debaser has gone a bit too far, but…C’mon folks, you all represent a very thin slice of the people he had to deal with. There really are scumbags out there, and the fine line between a scumbag and someone down on their luck is often in the eye of the Boss.
Where do you draw the line between scumbag and non-scumbag when both are crying “Rent & Food is all I spend my money on!” OK, fine. When I was too broke to pay my bills, I ate pasta and tomato paste (really). When my friend was too broke to pay bills, he was eating fast-food and saying the exact same thing. Difference? About $150 a month between what he felt were the basics and what I thought was.
So MasterCard doesn’t get paid because you think Taco Bell is rock-bottom.
ex-girlfriend: “I have to buy make-up because I get better tips, which will help me get out of this mess I’m in.” Sorta see the logic, but does it have to be Loreal X-base Factor-3 with lipids and rose-hip conditioner? Wouldn’t Walmart lip-shine work just as well? The difference in price is $10 and that could go to your credit card bill…“SHUT-UP! YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!”
So Visa doesn’t get paid this month because of lipstick…
The problem is where YOU rationalize your position and where they do. A debt collector is not your friend. He is not paid to be your friend. He wants the money. Boo-hoo, you don’t have it. But maybe your family does…maybe a friend can spot you the $122.93 to get this asshat collector off your back. You might think that there are 3 to 50 things more important to spend your money on than I, or a debt collector, do. How are we to know?
I delivered medical supplies and prescriptions…fun job (not). Do you know how guilty, horrible and scummy I felt when I had to deny someone medication because they couldn’t(wouldn’t) pay the $3 co-pay? Excuse the fuck out of me, but there is an empty carton of Miller sitting by the trash…Oh, I’m sorry. That’s your neighbors. Well, I guess I can’t argue, because you say it’s true. Here, I’ll pay the co-pay out of my $4.75/hour paycheck, because you seem like a nice lady…
And you wonder why he calls people scumbags…
The fact that you were even allowed to run up bills is testimony to the problems/trust in the system. If nice people like you were never allowed to be questioned, then I doubt that companies would offer credit to 90% of the population. I wonder how much you folks would complain if you had to go through an interview to get a credit card? If you had to get a letter signed from your employer that you would not be fired for 6 months? If your parents would have to co-sign everything until you were 30?
So you law-abiders get inconvenienced occasionally or lumped together with scumbags…big deal. How much trouble would you have to go through if credit DIDN’T exist? You have to pay for the problems associated with those that do not pay- or did you think that the 10% to 22% interest was calculated randomly? Same as your Mortgage insurance…My sister has PERFECT credit, never missed a payment in 20 years- she still has to pay mortgage insurance because so many people do default. But you know what? She got the loan, she now has a house, whereas, if things like insurance and bill collectors didn’t exist, she never would have. Cash up front baby! CASH. Show me the color of your coin.
As Debaser has said many times, he used the information available to assess whether or not someone was in fact hard-up, or just rationalizing to their benefit. Why should he have to listen to your long story about love lost and work not found? You represent the 1%, not the 99%. So you get lumped. You’ll live. Whereas the people who really are the scumbags will get fucked. And they won’t get the cards, and then you’ll get compared to them and approved for the lower interest rate, and in the end, you are doing just fine, walking around with 5 cards and the ability to fund a minor war if you wanted to. Without him, without the generalizations, you would not get credit because more people who end up on collection agency’s desks are guilty than are innocent.
Don’t blame Debaser for doing his job. He was hired for one purpose- to get the money. Just because you are the exception doesn’t mean he shouldn’t follow the rules. And face it folks- he was dealing with people who didn’t pay $5k to $15k…which is a whole different story than Jake calling 1-900-ASS-FUCK.
OR, another way to put it, Sauron, lezlers- what would you say to everyone you’ve talked to if you were guilty as sin , but just didn’t want to pay? Would you have handled it any differently, if you didn’t want to pay? How would they have been able to tell the difference? You talk a lot about how they should put themselves in your shoes, what about walking in theirs for a mile? Please, enlighten me as to how you would handle an average phone call as a debt collector…
You say that like it’s a bad thing. I happen to think entirely too many banks/companies throw credit cards around.
I’m guessing you think racial profiling is a good thing, too.
You’re exactly right. He should follow the rules. Which, by his own admission, he didn’t do.
I’m not faulting him/her for doing his/her job. I’m faulting him/her for the assumptions being made.
If I were guilty as sin and actually owed AT&T $70, I would have paid it when the bill came due. This thread never would have existed. Again, that’s the difference between an adult and a scumbag, in my opinion. My beef is that I (and lezlers, who, once again, actually paid what she owed) automatically get lumped in the “scumbag” category for no reason whatsoever.
Which might very well be a good thing. Make the creditors take responsibility for their decisions instead of socking the rest of us with disgustingly high interest rates to make up for the charge-offs they’re willing to absorb. And then run crying to Congress to get the bankruptcy laws changed to make credit card debt non-dischargeable. Feh. A plague on their house.
I doubt on a charged off account Debaser had access to the specific charges as opposed to just a lump sum, so how would he (or you) know what that $5-15K was spent on? Is it somehow worse that the unpaid debt was accrued on pornography or phone sex charges instead of, say, a shiny red sports car?
Tom: My problem is with Debaser calling me a scumbag. To my face (figuratively speaking). I have no doubt that he/she has dealt with true scumbags. I’m not arguing that. I’m arguing my case.
I ate at the resteraunt whenever I worked (it was free) otherwise, it was all about the Ramen.
Huh? Dude, if you’ve got some issues with your ex, don’t go projecting them onto me. I used to be a makeup consultant, so I can safely say, I had an arsenal to pick from. I purchased no make-up in this timeframe.
Again, missing the point. I’m not arguing about Debaser’s job, I’m arguing about being directly called a scumbag.
Have you even read this thread? Debaser has stated many times that he/she doesn’t listen to individual stories, ever. So he/she wouldn’t even know. He/she decides the person is a scumbag merely for being in the situation they are in, regardless of what got them there. This is, say it with me now, the point of this entire thread (at this point)
Why yes, yes it is a big deal. There are more white people on welfare then any other race. Being white, should I not be offended if I’m considered “trailer trash” merely because I’m white? I mean it’s no big deal right?
How can he/she know anything from merely looking at someone’s credit report? And how is she/he rationalizing to their benefit? He/she thinks they’re all scumbags!
Apparently not, since in his/her very words, I’m still a scumbag. …
Yes, I did read this thread…and right at the top of page 2:
What’s the problem? You guys ran ragged around him, so I see where he has been forced to focus on minutae and thus bring out some nasty positions (which is where I think he failed and started to get personal, thus pissing you off directly)…But the above seems entirely reasonable to me. What is the available info? This person hasn’t paid shit while running up charges left and right. So what is the assumption? That this person will give me the run-around and try not to pay. What should I do, ask nice? NO! It’s a scumbag! Treat them as such.
My main argument for giving Debaser a break is that he was just telling you what the process was. Most of you then took affront to that (as I saw it). You all seemed to want these people to sit down and have coffee with you so you can ‘chat’ about your problems and come to an understanding. Sorry, they have no time for that. Where’s the money? My computer says you are a scumbag (as compared with the other 99 people I talked with today with the same credit rating and history as you). Not nice, but that is how the system works.
When the system works against you, I know it sucks. I had 2 student loan companies telling me I owed them the same amount (my loan got sold from one to the other, but it never got erased from the original). So I had NO IDEA who to send the check to every month, which ended up with me having my credit rating slashed and 2 cards cancelled…plus I now ‘technically’ owed twice the amount of student loans. I had all of the paperwork I could get, but nothing was working. The peons had computers that said I owed them money. Even then, I couldn’t blame them. How were they to know? There was nothing to distinguish me from all of the other people who refused to pay. So I waited and wrote, called and begged. It finally got resolved 2 years later. What did I learn? To be very careful with my loans- which ones I took, who I took them with, and what happened to them. Credit is not something to be taken lightly.
You all seem to agree that there is too much credit out there- but I bet none (well, how about only a few) of you let that affect your decision to get a card. Have you even read the agreements on your cards? Do you even know what conditions you and the company have to adhere to? Or did you (like me) just sign your name at the bottom and smile while you thought about everything that you could buy now? The 2 minute credit check sure is nice when it works in your favor, isn’t it? Well, the aftermath can be a bitch…be warned.
Otto, yes there is a difference between high phone bills made while having phone sex and overspending your budget by $10,000. My point was that he was (mostly) dealing with people who were so out of touch with their lives that they went “Whoops! Where did that $5,000 get to? Silly me!” How in the hell do you rack up that kind of unpaid/defaulted debt innocently (barring computer screw-ups)? Yes, those types should have been treated differently than the phone ones. Everyone talks too long on the phone. Who ‘accidentally’ overspends by $15,000? My guess is scumbags trying to work the system.
Lastly, you got me with the lumping statement…I digress. I meant to focus on the point that not having credit would be worse than dealing with problems associated with having credit. You (rightly) caught me on the first sentence, but I just wrote that as a lead-up to the rest of the paragraph. I apologize.
As info, I have a grand total of one (1) credit card. It’s the same card I’ve had since college – 15 years and counting.
I realize you put a caveat in your statement, but once again this whole blanket-assumption thing sticks in my craw. It’s the same thing Debaser has done, multiple times. “Oh, I don’t mean you when I say all debtors are scumbags.” Five posts later, he’s STILL not amending the “all debtors are scumbags” statement. If you’re called on it, and you know you’re wrong when you say it, why continue to say it? In my opinion, that speaks of a closed mind – and a closed mind is fertile ground for the weeds of ignorance to flourish.
No, the computer says nothing of the sort. The computer says how much you owe, who you owe it to, and how far in arrears the account is, as well as providing certain other financial and location information.
The computer is a machine, and makes no moral determinations. Debaser was the one doing the moralizing, and was quite open about doing this despite not being interested in people’s personal histories.
I’m not going to speak for others, but i have never questioned on this thread the creditor’s right to restitution, nor have i questioned the right of the debt collector to act on behalf of the creditor in this regard. Where i, and i think most others, took issue with Debaser was concerning his or her personal willingness to make absolute moral judgements based on (intentionally) incomplete knowledge.
No, Debaser moved well beyond the simple issue of logistics, as should be obvious to anyone who’s been following the debate. If Debaser had simply said: “These are the procedures, and whether you like it or not, and whether i like it or not, that’s the way the collection industry works,” then i would have had little to say on the matter. And if you really believe Debaser was simply telling us “what the process was,” may i refer you back to the very first post, indeed the very first words, that Debaser contributed to this thread:
You may agree with this diatribe, you may not. But it hardly constitutes a simple tale of “what the process was.”
Pwhew. It’s way too late to be getting home from a 9 to 5 job. Sorry about not addressing everybody’s points if some are slipping through the cracks. But, hey, I’ve got a lot of lions and only a few chairs here.
Couple of quick factual things:
Since there seems to be some confusion on this issue I will clear the air. I am male.
Not true. Ever since that point has been come up I have tried to be careful about always saying “Most debtors in my experience are scumbags.” If you feel like combing through my posts to find an instance of my abbreviating this statement then that’s all it is: an abbrevation.
Bullshit. Your very first sentance to this thread back on page one was this:
This was complete with both a putz and rolley eyed smiley. You came out punching. I didn’t start anything with you.
Also you said this:
All before I ever called you a scumbag.
As I said earlier, I immediately thought that your story was a good argument for my case. I resisted using it, believe it or not, until you called me out on avoiding it. I didn’t want to get that personal.
Sheesh. I knew I wouldn’t be popular with this stance, but it’s getting warm in here.
Here is a post from page one of the thread:
**
As to this new issue of blaming the creditors that has come up:
If you all want to debate the issue of creditors aggressively targeting college students and others who are often unable to handle the high balances they get you will have to find somebody else to do it with. I don’t really have strong enough feelings on this to care either way. They are being unethical slightly, but I also tend to think that people would be bitching just as much if they refused credit to poor people, college students, or anybody else as a matter of policy.
The system isn’t perfect, but it isn’t terrible either. Anybody who wants to reform the bankrupcy laws would have my blessing.
This legality stuff is interesting. You may be right about nearby messages being illegal, but only in an academic sense. It would probably depend on which judge you talked to.
This much I can tell you with authority: I worked for a large agency which had 9 offices across the country, IIRC. They had about 50 collectors in each office. Not only were we allowed to leave nearby messages we were encouraged to do it. You were only allowed to do it once on an account.
We would type it right there in the account notes! It would look something like this (except in much abbreviated typing).
I can tell you that my company had never been successfully sued for this practice. If they were they wouldn’t be openly doing it. Believe me, the management is afraid of lawsuits. They don’t want to break laws.
The important thing about laws is not the actual law but how they are interpreted by a judge to really mean.
So, either you have come up with a way that collectors are breaking the law that every other attorney who sued my company didn’t think of, or they are in fact legal. I am thinking it’s been interpreted as legal by some court somewhere and we just don’t know the case to look up. But, IANAL, so who knows?
This law bdgr posted:
This is not as black and white as it seems. If a collector calls a debtor at work and leaves a message with the secretary, is that illegal? I wouldn’t think so. It’s done all the time. But, this law could literally be interpreted that way.
And finally, when I said "Also, most people don’t know that they are helping a collector. I usually phrased it in such a way that they thought I was an old friend of the debtor. " I don’t think I am in violation of this law:
A collector is not allowed to say that they are calling in collection of a debt. The natural thing to do here is just act nice and friendly. People usually do not assume that they are talking to a collector. That’s why I said phrased it in such a way that they thought I was an old friend instead of lied and claimed I was an old friend in my post. You would have a tough time proving false representation or deceptive means if a collector didn’t say anything untruthful or lie in any way.
