02-19-2009, 11:43 AM
beerman wrote:
Gutenberg, could you clarify your comments for me? I suspect others understood what you were saying, but I did not. thank you.
As an interesting side note I just got back from a board meeting where a lawyer was very frustrated that a portion of the bailout money will be going to speculators or to people who made incredibly bad financial decisions. He made almost the same comment that kj made, that we are essentially subsidizing someone's lifestyle. I would have to admit I agree but I don't know how any criteria could be setup to exclude those people and still accomplish the goal of keeping people in their houses that otherwise would lose them. Perhaps exclude mortgages that are not on primary residences would be a start?
Not to pick on you beerman but Consumer Credit Counseling is an extension of and supported by the credit industry. Their purpose is to keep people in the credit system even if it means a lifetime payment program.
We're swamped with incoming business. We do consumer bankruptcy. Prior to bankruptcy comes CCC in fact we use to suggest CCC before bankruptcy - we no longer do that. It's become an almost useless option in my experience.
I'd really like to layout the way your people put debtors into lifetime endless payout programs but I have neither the time nor energy. I'd like to relate how consumers come to us and confide that your counselors told them that CCC couldn't help but "don't tell anyone I said that because I'd be in trouble here."
Your program is promoted as a benefit to consumers, it's not. It's a benefit for the financial institutions who foot the bill.
In many ways it's a fraud on the public and probably needs a bit of regulation itself.
PS: If you are on the board of your local CCC and don't already know this then you are not in dereliction of duty as a board member because you are not supposed to go beyond the charter.
Have you ever read that charter?