First, I’ll say...”walk a mile in another man’s shoes.”
Secondly, my point is really this:
The law in effect now came at the same time banks started giving away loans to people that couldn’t pay them back...it seems odd that happened at the same time and now people really have no recourse. If someone can’t pay, THEY CAN’T PAY. You can’t “make” the money appear to pay a bill simply by strongarming someone who has a family to feed and take care of.
It was too easy before. It’s a bit too restrictive now...some of the calculations used are ridiculous. I can’t remember what they are, but something like saying you ought to be able to pay for shelter, food, fuel, clothing, necessities for a family of four on $800 a month and all that...just too crazy. I wouldn’t know as I haven’t personally seen what the numbers used are, it was on a thread a year or two ago.
Those hard working people should have been more thoughtful with their hard earned labor and made a personal decision for their own good before requiring someone else to make a law or decision for them.
Nothing coincidental about it. The banks, once they got their reforms, knew that either you pay or they get the property. It was a no lose situation for them.
Now, no only do they get the property but they get federal funds to keep them afloat.
Bush couldn't wait to sign this. Makes me wonder if he's EVER had to work for a living?
Well, the aged accounts float from collection agency to collection agency -- seconds, thirds and beyond. The hounding won't stop since it is so cheap to do, and the collectors are established without startup costs, hardly -- it is well into the age of automated communications and plenty of demographic information readily accessible and cheap so you can track them.
In a file of a few hundred thousand accounts, there will be some where the debtor or someone in his household comes into money -- so a cheap hounding of years-old non-paying accounts nearly always turns up some dollars in the mail.