Topic: [Debt Slavery] Credit card debt now secured by government. - page 2. (Read 3341 times)

LMAO no just no.. nooo.  Fractional banking owns your argument.

There's nothing innocent about that, as there is a very simple solution: insurance. It is grossly negligent to get into debt without insuring your income and assets. If you can't afford insurance, you can't afford debt. It's that simple.

No, I'm not. Learn to read.

And learn the definition of fascism, while you're at it.

This was never the case. All an "unsecured" debt is, something that is not secured by specific property that can be seized in the event of a default. A creditor can still get a judgement against someone and have the court seize any unencumbered assets in order to pay off what is owed to them.
This is also not a change. If you do not have enough assets to pay off your unsecured debt then the court can order that future payments to you be seized to pay off your debt overtime.

If you don't want to risk having your paycheck garnished in the future then I would suggest not be a deadbeat

Your statement above is grossly and provably false.

Finance Part I: Understanding the Parasite

You didn't bother to address my point about fractional reserve lending. I take it you did further research and realized you were mistaken.

Really? So whats this below VVV

Default on debt is not equivalent to theft. I will provide a very simple example. If a person takes out a loan, then a few years later their house burns down and they lose their job, and as a result they are unable to pay their debt, is this an act of theft? There are many perfectly innocent reasons someone might default on a loan, even without intent of "theft".

See now here you show your ignorance of the system of law as well. There is a VERY important distinction between civil and criminal law for a very good reason. Criminal law is part of the public process and is put into place only after publicly elected officials pass legislation and it is approved by the local, state, or federal governments. Plaintiffs also have a right to a TRIAL BY JURY as well as several other protections to ensure a fair hearing under criminal law. Civil law can be invoked by ANYONE for ANY REASON. While you can often sue someone who is also guilty of violations of criminal law, you CAN NOT prosecute people under criminal law for a debt that is NOT A CRIMINAL ACT. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Criminal law does, and should have a much higher standard because it is not just a matter of property rights, it is a matter of human rights, and additionally there are no standards limiting who can sue whom in court and for what reason. What you are asking for as a result is a system where people can be judged against under civil law, and then have criminal penalties applied to them WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

This is exactly what you support in effect, regardless of your ignorance on the matter.

Lawsuits are acceptable for property and contract disputes. Criminal law does not, and should not have the jurisdiction to prosecute civil cases. This is why DEBT COLLECTION COMPLETELY REMAINS IN THE JURISDICTION OF CIVIL LAW, at least in a society that has rule of law anyway. Obviously fascists such as your self would like to see that changed. Also before you accuse me of making a personal attack, those who advocate for the merger of the corporation and the state are by definition fascists.

And shoplifting is a natural risk of retail. It's why retailers put magnetic anti-theft devices on their merchandise. That doesn't mean they shouldn't use the full force of the law to punish shoplifters.

I'm not. I'm merely cheering debt collection. It hardly matters whether that's done by the government or a private company.

Ignorance is no defence.

I see you don't know the meaning of that word. A slave is someone who is forced to work against their will. But nothing about debt is against the debtor's will. When they signed they contract, they willingly agreed to repay the loan. They accepted the responsibility completely voluntarily.

---

I never said anything about imprisoning people.

With freedom comes responsibility. In particular, I expect any free person to be responsible enough to not harm or steal from other people. I see no problem with denying freedom to people who deny their responsibilities. Most civilised justice systems function on this concept. There are worse alternatives.

Not sure if rhetorical question, but if not, all actions against a person or property have both a civil and criminal component.

I support no such thing.

I made no such demand, either. It is, however, perfectly reasonable to demand that lenders can reduce the risk by suing or prosecuting those who don't pay their debts.

The problem is he is going even a step further past wage garnishments, and saying it is right for people to be imprisoned for bad debt. As you mentioned there is a risk vs reward analysis for every act of commerce. Demanding that commerce some how be risk free for the lender is asinine and against the very fundamental principals of commerce.

You are just flat out incorrect about this and you lack a basic understanding about how the money supply works. I am willing to bet you didn't even bother to look at the documentation I provided, not that reality or facts are important to you.

So how is my improper choice of investment any different than a bank making a loan to an unfit party? Banks can sue debtors who default on their loans, why do banks get to imprison people as well ON TOP of the lawsuit?

Here you are contradicting yourself, as well as responding to a premise I did not make. I never said the borrowers FATE was the banks responsibility, I did however state that banks have knowingly, and on an industrialized scale made loans to VERY CLEARLY unfit borrowers, such as homeless and unemployed people. This is in the realm of negligence, theft, and fraud, especially when you consider they pay no costs if the loan is in default.

What should happen and what happens in reality are much different. You are correct in pointing out that it would be an invalid contract, but do you really think the bank cares? Do you think the average person in debt has the means to argue this in court against a multinational bank? If keeping property that doesn't belong to you is theft then the lending parties are guilty of theft from each and every USD holder, tax payer, and home owner in the US.

So putting someone in a cage is not loss of their rights? At what point did civil matters become criminal matters? You don't at all see the dangerous precedent this sets? Last time I checked companies and even individuals are legally allowed to be free regardless of gigantic civil settlements made against them. You are basically supporting a world where anyone can be sued for anything, and if you can afford it you can take anyone's freedom away via a civil suit process. This is moving away from rule of law (ie separation of criminal and civil law), and into fascism where the state is nothing but a tool for corporate entities.

Wrong wrong wrong it's not theft it is default. Most of the time these people intended to repay but later cannot.

Default is a natural risk of lending. It's why lenders charge a huge interest rate especially for unsecured debt.
When did credit cards morph from unsecured debt to debt secured by every penny you will ever make in the future?

Why are you cheering the morphing of our government into the debt collection agency of big business?
If this trend continues all credit card companies need to do is make it just a little bit harder for people to file for bankruptcy and then give collage students tons of 0% interest credit cards.

 "Don't worry about that credit card debt college kid it's a great deal at 0%. We wont even require you to make payments until you are done with collage and get a job. What you missed your first payment sorry that 50k now has an interest rate of 26%. We get to take 25% of all your earnings forever. What you did not know what you were doing when you signed up for this at age 18? Sorry that's you problem after all not paying your debt is theft."

Is this the future you want a society of slaves? I know we are well on our way already but to cheer it on and is nauseating. Default is a natural risk of lending. Cheering for wage garnishments is cheering for corporate bailouts and big government.

I know how fractional reserve banking works. You clearly don't. For every dollar in reserve, they loan out $9 more, from a total of $10 in deposit.

It is your fault for making the investment, but the hobo's fault for it going wrong, and you can sue him for that. Of course, you likely won't get much, which, more than anything else, is what makes it a bad idea.

That responsibility is to the investor himself. He has a responsibility to make a profit, and that means not making loans that are likely to go bad and lose him money. The fate of the borrower is not his responsibility at all.

Because even if a contract is invalid, it is invalid for both parties. If the borrower was never supposed to receive the loan, then the lender was never supposed to give it, which means the money loaned is the lender's property and must be returned. Keeping property that doesn't belong to you is theft.

You cannot lose a right you never had in the first place. Nobody, poor or not, has a right to borrow money without paying it back.

Technically 90% of the loans ARE created out of thin air. So for every dollar in deposit, they can loan out $9 more. You are woefully uninformed about he banking system.

"As we're going to see, money in our modern banking system has the ability to multiply through bank lending. Each time a loan is made, money is created. Out of where, you may ask? Out of thin air. Most people would attribute this feat only to the Federal Reserve, but in actuality, every bank does it with every loan they make."
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/matthew-kerkhoff/fractional-reserve-banking-how-to-create-destroy-money


The banking system is RIFE with stories about banks giving loans to people with no credit, bad credit, hobos, even criminals during the housing market boom. There are even reports of bank employees FALSIFYING LOAN PAPERWORK without the knowledge of customers! The consequence is disconnected from the choice of who to lend to, because if a loan goes bad the TAX PAYERS, HOME OWNERS, and USD holders pay the price, not the loaning bank. If I pick up an random hobo off the street and pay him to remodel my house instead of a qualified bonded contractor, is it the hobos fault or my fault for making that investment when it goes wrong? It is the primary responsibility of the investing party to due due diligence upon the borrowing party.
It boils down to this...
If I file for a loan that I shouldn't be approved for, and my bank falsifies my paperwork and gets me the loan anyway, how is that even an enforceable contract let alone something one should be imprisoned for? Being poor should never mean a loss of your human rights. The bankers are playing a rigged game, now they want to get their pound of flesh after they have entrapped the nation with fraud.

Loans aren't created out of thin air. They are created out of deposits. Depositors are expected to know exactly what they're putting they're putting their money into. Whether that's a reasonable expectation is another matter entirely.

You have a strange idea about responsibility. A lender has no responsibility or obligation to the debtor other than to actually provide the loan itself. The lender will of course be annoyed if the loan is never repaid, which is why they don't make loans to those who are bad credit risks, but that's not the lender's responsibility. Repaying the loan is the sole responsibility and obligation of the debtor.

You mean like every time they create a loan out of thin air and rob every USD holder world wide in the process? Also, why is this not the responsibility of the lender to assure that someone they loan to is not a risk to lend to? They are extracting a profit, any time this happens there is a corresponding risk or obligation. This is an immutable law of commerce.

As it should be. Borrowing something and not giving it back isn't debt, it's theft.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/debtors-prisons
https://news.vice.com/article/debtors-prisons-are-taking-the-us-back-to-the-19th-century
http://www.npr.org/2014/05/21/313118629/supreme-court-ruling-not-enough-to-prevent-debtors-prisons

The rules are changing. Once upon a time people could walk away from debt and start over if they got into trouble. It would be very unwise to assume this will be possible in the future.

Credit card debt is no longer unsecured debt. It is now secured by a 25% lien on all your future earnings. Protect yourself and your family accordingly.

http://knba.org/post/when-consumer-debts-go-unpaid-paychecks-can-take-big-hit