Home
Public Forum
Credit Reports
Apply For Cards
Credit Directory
Credit Overview
Credit Problems
Credit News
International
Credit Glossary
Purchase Books
Credit Laws
Business Credit
Merchant Accts
   

What a crock that site is. BeenThere is exactly right.


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Credit Forum Index ]

Posted by mk_378 (164.106.129.132) on April 28, 2004 at 08:50:30:

In Reply to: Re: Credit Help Across The Board - WATCH OUT posted by BeenThereStillDoingThat on April 27, 2004 at 09:42:02:

This is an example of "astroturf" lobbying: a big money company trying to impersonate a "grassroots" effort by individuals.

Every page sledgehammers the point that "Credit Counseling" is a panacea for any consumer with a debt problem. As many consumers on these boards will say, that is not true. It is rarely the best option.

The site wants two major "reforms" in what they call the CCA (Credit Counseling Agency) industry.

First they want the Federal government to usurp state regulation of credit counseling. This would give the CCA's one-stop influence buying in Washington, and take the teeth out of state AG's that are currently nipping at CCA's heels.

Second they want to allow "for profit" CCA's. Of course the existing "non-profit" CCAs and CCCS are very much for profit as it is now. Their vision of the ideal CCA is one that extracts a fee directly from the debtor, rather than taking a kickback from the creditor. I don't see a lot of distinction there. The existing ones that demand an upfront fee are typically scam operations that take the fees but do nothing for the debtor. Fees taken anywhere by a third party are money that might have been used to pay the debt but is now gone. Credit counselors are now and forever will be "'soft' debt collectors." No matter what the compensation structure, creditors are not going to work with them unless the CCA is helping to collect the debt.

They want to force creditors to give certain concessions about the debt to CCA's. Why should a debtor have to pay a third party to be able to negotiate better terms from a creditor? Why should a creditor be forced to give better terms to a debtor because a third party is now involved? The whole concept is totally unworkable, but it might fly in Congress.




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:


[ Follow Ups ]   [ Post Followup ]   [ Credit Forum Index ]

 

    Top Of Page

  

Copyright 1999-2004 Enkephalos Web Design