![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-929857-100x100.png\")
I hope the people with needed talents join her in this venture-too many people are getting ripped off by big business.
I hope the people with needed talents join her in this venture-too many people are getting ripped off by big business.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1312305-100x100.png\")
She pays her monthly payments, they should have given lower than 12.99%.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1175017-100x100.png\")
@threadislocked: As far as I know just paying the minimum is still risky in some banks' minds.
Also, every contract I've seen states that credit card companies can raise the rates at any time with some showing an opt-out period (and thanks to recent legislation) and way to disagree with rate increase but still maintain and pay off the balance. The situation sucks and seems unfair but it is in the contract; that being said I'd hate to see it happen to someone
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-505958-100x100.png\")
@threadislocked: I'm paying as of the latest hike 22.9 on my last CapOne card, rolling over a small balance to make sure that they didn't.....you know.... raise my rate or consider me unprofitable. I WOULD DIE FOR 12.9!! :-(
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-498964-100x100.png\")
@threadislocked: I'm assuming that is what her rate was before they jacked it up. She asked for them to return it to the rate she had before.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-665956-100x100.png\")
@threadislocked:
I think there's more than whether or not she pays her payments that goes toward calculating interest. If she wasn't happy with it, she shouldn't have accepted it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
How exactly was she \"wronged?\" A vendor she deals with raised prices, as is their right.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21984-100x100.png\")
@NeverLetMeDown: She missed one payment and they jacked her % rate to 29.99 (which also happened to me) plus she had some other BOA regular bank accounts. That is why she was mad - that she could get no one to lower the rate like they used to be able to do.
Paying off debts related to being unemployed and getting divorced- not an active CC user- debit cards all the way. BOA jacked my account % up and charged me their fee because I missed a payment. Ok- understood- pay with fire and get burned. Then they said it would take 6 months of on time payments to be considered for a reduction. 7 months pass and I call. They say then \"So sorry you don't qualify.\"
3 months later BOA then sends me some consumer loan advertisement and I work through that with them which would have given me a 17.99% rate. I ask them why this loan could give me that but the card couldn't. No answer- sorry that is the program. I refuse the loan deal. Call back 2 months later which is (1 year from the original missed payment) and ask to get interest rate reduced. \"Oh, now we can bring it down to 27.99%\" they say. I said \"Thanks for the scraps.\" and took it.
Finally I was able to get a discover card and BOA sent me a refund check for the slight ($40) amount I overpaid on the balance transfer after about 4 months. Kept the card open though and not used it again.
Now the BOA whores are sending me lots of transfer checks for an 8.99% transfer to June 2010. I want to call them and ask: \"How is that to work when they could never lower my rate before?\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1318503-100x100.png\")
@NeverLetMeDown: While I do agree at base, I think its strange that the vendor can raise the price on previous purchases without your permission. That's in effect what they are doing when they raise the interest on all balances, existing and upcoming.
Now, that to me is wrong, but I also understand that they aren't promptly repaying the money they borrowed. Its a tough argument either way. Personal responsibility vs corporate greed.
@TuxthePenguin: Wrong. They did have her permission to raise the price (ie interest in this case). The application she signed to get the card said as much.
The issue here is ALL personal responsibility. She could've avoided this whole situation at several different points, but chose to throw a youtube tantrum instead.
Remember, when you borrow money with a credit card, you borrow it for one month. The credit card company _can_, but doesn't _have to_, allow you to continue to roll over the borrowing. It's not one loan, it's a long series of monthly loans.
@NeverLetMeDown: unfortunately, i don't think a lot of people understand that a CC is a line of revolving credit. if people understood the difference between a line of credit and a loan, i bet they'd be less likely to let balances get out of hand
@NeverLetMeDown: true, but it is unsettling that BOA and other banks are being bailed out by the taxpayers, get to borrow from the Fed (supported by inflation tax of printing money) at 0.25% interest rate, then have the gall to demand 25% because economic conditions demand they raise rates. No wonder they're making money. How it is possible to lost money?
I disagree: they increased her interest rate for no reason raised her rates to what should be criminal levels just to earn as much money as they could before certain laws would effect their ability to do so. Clearly you would have paid the 30% and proven you are a sucker.
@thebaron: Clearly I would've opted out of the increase when given the chance. This woman is ignorant and you all are praising her for it. She is soooo brave!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-422781-100x100.png\")
@drmcclin: I don't think you read the orginal article.
There was no opt-out for her. They raised the rate on her prior balance with no chance to close the account and pay off the balance at the old rate.
@msbask: almost every rate increase I've seen has included an option to opt-out. I'd be very surprised if she didn't have that option.
@drmcclin:
They do imply that 'opting out' doesn't have to involve closing the account, however. I think her complaint had been that she didn't want to close the account, or whatever.
@ballistic90: she doesn't want to close the account, doesn't want to pay her debt. I can really see why the bank should cater to her every whim!
@ballistic90: she doesn't want to close the account, she doesn't want to pay her debt. I can totally see why the bank should cater to her every whim!
@thebaron:
If you invest in a 401k or a ROTH IRA and make over 25-40% in returns over a period of a year or to, are you making criminal amounts of money?
CARD would have changed little in her scenario. Primarily the calculation is as follows: line of credit is extended, they expect to make XXX dollars in interests over the life of her account. She runs in to trouble, starts paying less and less each month. Old debt under CARD is fixed at her lower rate. Her ability to pay is declining. Actuarial tables suggest her data leads to a bankruptcy filing (and discharge of debt) in 8-15 months. In order to make the XXX dollars they wanted when they signed her up, the rates go up to compensate.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-114567-100x100.png\")
Citibank just gave me the shaft - after mmore than a year with a 5.9% rate, they raised my rate to 14.99%. I'm sure it was purely coincidental that this happened the same month I charged several thousand dollars worth of unexpected \"minor emergency\" expenses.
When I called to ask for a lower rate, I was offered my old rate, but I would have to close the account to get it. Otherwise, tough shit, no offers available, check back nest month.
Solution: I transferred the entire balance to another card. 4% fee, yuck. But 200 dollars in fees is better than 800-900 bucks in interest over the next 12-18 months.
Oddly, when I called back afterward and explained this, suddenly a new promotional rate was available. Funny how that works
@Sylvester McMonkey McBug: The CC company is not out to get your, I promise. It WAS actually coincidence if they raised the rate at the same time you were carrying a balance. I don't carry ANY balances on my 8+ cards and guess what? They've ALL gone up in the last few months. Guess what else? I don't care how high they want to go w/it. Financial responsibility is very liberating.
@drmcclin:
Well, being debt free is a good aim, but for those that run into medical bills or unemployment, debt is unavoidable. Considering that independent medical insurance can often leave people with tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills, I don't blame them for getting into debt.
And regardless of the entire situation, I still, STILL think making a Youtube video to complain about a interest rate hike and to 'rise up and take down the banks' is tacky and over dramatic. It's good for her that it got her results, but still....
@ballistic90: Being responsible with money means having a savings account for unemployment situations.
If you have sudden unexpected medical debt, you can negotiate a payment plan with the hospital/clinic. Their rate will ALWAYS be better than a credit card rate.
@drmcclin: That still constitutes as debt, with financing and late charges and the like.
There have also been situations where hospitals don't offer a payment plan upfront and request the money in full, even if a payment plan is available.
Also, there are prolonged stays or family members that are bedridden or require an indefinite stay in the hospital. I can't see a hospital being too quick to settle on a payment plan in those cases, but I've never been in that situation myself.
@Sylvester McMonkey McBug: Sorry, I'm young and don't know much of the details of credit accounts, etc; but why would it be a problem to close the account for a lower rate?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-350350-100x100.png\")
@Airjoe: It would result in an unnecessary hit on your credit report since an established account is more relevant than a newly opened one (which is what I gather happened here. They would only give him the low rate if he cancelled the current account and open a new one). Obviously a sneaky way for one of their reps to make a commission on opening a new account.
@dragonfire81: No, they were offering him to \"opt-out\" of the increase. This does NOT open a new account, although it does close the old one. Which is more important, a few points on your FICO or the thousands of dollars you'd be saving by locking in the lower interest rate. So no, it's not \"obviously a sneaky way for the rep to make commission\". CSRs don't even make commission on accounts....
Take the time to educate yourselves before you sign your lives away OR do something that will ruin you or your credit, people.
A while ago, I commented on an article that I used a debit card. People replied, saying I could use a credit card without paying that percentage so long as I paid off the balance in full every month.
Did this woman not do that? I'm confused.
@MooseOfReason: This woman was stupid. She had a balance of about $5k yet talked about pulling out about $5k from regular BOA checking account.
Yes, using a debit card for usual living expenses is probably better but have several active but idle checking accounts in case your card number gets compromised so you could either wait for a new card or easily switch to another account. Some have one debit account for living expenses, one for automatic payments and one idle one for backup and/or a quasi-savings account.
Don't trust the \"I use a cc for everything and pay off my balance each month for frequent flier miles, etc.\" crowd. You have to be an account hawk logging in all the time to check your balance and credit card geek to some extent to do this and not get burned. This will not work if you only rely on your monthly statement mailed to you. Eventually the CC companies will change a due date or something to hammer you with a missed payment. Some people have even gotten late fees for paying TOO early- ie in the previous cycle.
@econobiker: Well, I can use my debit card like a credit card. The money comes out of my checking account, and on the Visa page it said my card has the same fraud protection as a credit card.
I guess you can't please some people.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-438422-100x100.png\")
@econobiker: sorry to be so direct, but you are wrong. I use a CC for everything, pay off the balance, and have no issues. I can't speak for next month, but going on 10 years, good so far. I just look at my online statement each month when they email it to me... not that hard. Your solution may work great for you, but I'm not like you, and it wouldn't work for me.
@sammy_b:
Isn't that so true?
Debt is a tough issue for most (including me, my high revolving balance was $18k), but letting people like the OP get credit for starting some kind of revolt smacks of Hummer owners bitching about gas prices.
@DollaValueLIFO: very well put! Thank God there are still some responsible people like you, willing to do the hard (but right) thing, instead of just throwing a tantrum.
I can't believe some of you are siding with this woman... Especially on a site like this one (where I assume people have a little more going on upstairs).
It's just disgusting to me how this woman is trying to shift responsibility for HER actions onto BofA. And everyone's buying it hook, line, and sinker just because they're a \"greedy mega-corporation!\"
Here's a tip: stop enslaving YOURSELVES
@drmcclin: Ok, well, let's remove any post you make when you're unemployed and a bank tries to take advantage of you. Considering the bank didn't put up any kind of fight is proof that they knew that they were either in the wrong, or that it was beneficial to them to reduce the rate.
But hey, if you ever have a loan that the financial company tries to change terms on you to bilk more money from you, feel free to post her and to be promptly ignored, and/or ridiculed.
Look at her house, even if unemployed, she clearly has assets of which to dispense in a bankruptcy settlement. You know, assuming she actually is incapable of paying her debts and needs the courts to step in.
It isn't \"taking advantage\" to change terms that were agreed to by the consumer. I've been un and under employed in the past two years, it sucks. I wasn't even eligible for benefits. I also didn't put up videos on youtube about how I was in debt and making no money and blahblah revolution
@ballistic90: Again, the financial company did NOT change the terms on her. The terms are the same as they ever were.
The fact that they didn't put up a fight can be chalked up to one thing: they don't want the negative publicity. Period. They were not \"in the wrong\".
@drmcclin: So read to me the terms of her agreement. Do it right now to prove to everyone that what they did was within their right. Oh wait, you don't have the agreement. And what's this? You're not a lawyer.
A few years ago, large numbers of complaints had gone up about credit card contracts, because they were exceedingly difficult to read. They took a sample of one to Harvard law to get it 'translated' by a 3rd year law student, and they were not able to find one that could do it. This had led to a reform.
Now, this is very, very important, because a contract or terms of service or any legal agreement will not hold up in court if there is proof that the company is attempting to withhold information from you during signing. If a representative from the company tells you something about a contract when you ask about it, what he said becomes the contract, or at least the part in question. So not only can you NOT tell me what the contract was, but you can't even tell me what the agreement was if you had it in your hands.
Now I'm waiting for your 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' speech that I'm willing to bet that you have stacked away somewhere. Before you do, I would further denounce the financial industry, as I find it irritating that they can increase the interest on a previous purchase, using a legal loophole to do so. A retail company would never get away with requesting more money from a customer on something they purchased previously. The only difference is a classification, and they enjoy a lot of legal protection with said classification.
@ballistic90: Find me a single credit card application on BofA's (or ANY provider's, for that matter) site that does NOT clearly state that the interest rate is variable. You can't, because every single credit card contract has that wording in it (not just at BofA). By law, it has to be in a chart, outlined by a big huge box.
As for me not knowing what the terms of the contract were b/c I haven't held it in my hands... Yeah, I'm sure BofA flew some lawyers out to negotiate their standard contract with this lady... If that's going to be your argument, I'm not going to waste any more of my time.
@drmcclin:
No, you seem to be making gross and over simplified assumptions on the contracts that they give someone to fill out, on the conditions of what was outlined in the terms of agreement. There are legal obligations on behalf of the bank on what they have to provide to their customers.
Writing 'Variable' in a box does not constitute an irrefutable contract, and I'd also like to make a case in point that if it does have a box that says 'Variable' in it in a chart of some time, you're not looking at a contract. You're looking at a loose set of terms that they hand you in a pamphlet.
@ballistic90: no, all the terms are clearly laid out ON THE APPLICATION. Don't agree with any of them? Don't sign up.
Plain and simple. I don't understand why you're having such a hard time grasping this concept.
The bank was in no way deceptive in laying out the terms to this woman. She decided she had to have that collection of toy cars you see in the background, so she agreed to their (ridiculous, IMHO) terms.
@ballistic90: I'm making an assumption based on the hundreds of applications I've personally filled out over the years. I highly doubt this one was any different, but you're right: I could be wrong.
You seem to be implying that this woman was somehow conned into this contract by BofA, which I'm simply trying to explain to you is false. The terms were laid out to her in plain english, as they are for everyone else.
Wait, so you're saying the terms provided in the contract are not valid? She freely admits that she signed up for a variable rate card. VARIABLE, as in changing. Said terms are also free to change pending other events, such as defaulting on another loan, failing to pay on time, etc etc etc.
Sounds to me like your beef is with contract law. More importantly, you ask him to post the part of her contract that specifically allows for the rates to be jumped, knowing he can't...completely ignoring the logical retort, which is hey, ballistic90, post the terms that says that they CAN'T!
Variable rate cards are just that. Any balance on the line is at a VARIABLE FREAKING RATE.
@ballistic90: But BoA they didn't change the terms! she signed an agreement that said it was a Variable rate, and the varied it! By not paying, she's the one who violates terms.
It sucks that she lost her job, and not everyone is perfect, but life isn't fair and you have to be aware of what you sign and the terms you agree to.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-305871-100x100.png\")
How banks are allowed to increase their credit card rates on existing debt really grabs me the wrong way. Bad enough the middle class taxpayer will pay the bailout costs for BofA's acquisition of the Lehman Bros. and all the subsequent \"contractual\" bonused given their lame execs, but allowing banks to increase interest rates on existing debt, which I look upon as a contract made when the transaction took place, is a slap in the face to all of us who have consistently paid our bills and are now being screwed by these greedy bastards.
@yorick328: Instead of looking at the contract b/w you and the lender in the way you see fit, why don't you look at the ACTUAL contract, which clearly states the interest rate is VARIABLE.
Don't like it? No one is forcing you to agree to their terms.
@drmcclin: It's also law that if the contract, or any part of the agreement is written with intention to hide said terms, or if the terms are sufficiently vague or even if you are prevented from reading the terms until after agreeing to it, then they can become null and void.
Precedence: Gateway had been sued for their contracts a number of years ago, because it stated that by opening the box for the computer, you were agreeing to the terms. The only way to read said terms was to open the box.
I've seen credit card applications that didn't give you full disclosure of all the terms until you had already signed up for it.
As you can see, contracts are not the end-all, be-all of legality that they may appear to be.
@ballistic90: \"I've seen credit card applications that didn't give you full disclosure of all the terms until you had already signed up for it.\"
That is a lie. Show me one example of a corporation knowingly violating Federal Law like this.
There has never been anything remotely vague or hidden in the hundreds of credit applications I've filled out over my 6 year credit card profiteering career.
You're clearly just grasping at straws at this point.
@drmcclin:
Aaaaand an article written by a Harvard Law professor:
\"How did financial products get so dangerous? Part of the problem is that disclosure has become a way to obfuscate rather than to inform. According to The Wall Street Journal, in the early 1980s, the typical credit card contract was a page long; by the early 2000s, that contract had grown to more than 30 pages of incomprehensible text.\"
Coming from someone trained to read contracts.
@ballistic90: again, show me one example, since you've seen it yourself... shouldn't be that hard, right?
Maybe you were overstating your position a bit, no?
Bottom line is, they are required by law to disclose in plain english what your rate is and where it maxes out. You still haven't shown me a single example where this isn't the case.
Furthermore, if I sign a contract w/o understanding it... who's to blame?
@drmcclin: \"again, show me one example, since you've seen it yourself... shouldn't be that hard, right?\"
So you're blind. Ok, fine. Let me go back to your original question:
\"That is a lie. Show me one example of a corporation knowingly violating Federal Law like this.\"
Again: [www.engadget.com]
Exactly: A corporation knowingly violating Federal Law.
\"Maybe you were overstating your position a bit, no?\"
No, I didn't. You just didn't read it.
\"Bottom line is, they are required by law to disclose in plain english what your rate is and where it maxes out. You still haven't shown me a single example where this isn't the case.\"
And this is where we come full circle. I have deduced that you do not know what a contract really is, and are going on a pamphlet they send you in the mail. This is not the contract, number 1, but a listing of their general terms. Number 2, you also go to state here that they need to disclose where it maxes it, and you're saying that they just write 'variable' in that box. That is not full disclosure.
\"Furthermore, if I sign a contract w/o understanding it... who's to blame? \"
Well, if you do, you're not to blame since it's very difficult to get the signature of someone with a perceived mental disability to actually be fit to sign the contract to begin with. (True law used in a joking way. Don't take it seriously)
Seriously though, the banks are still held accountable, to a point, permitting first that they did not first prevent you from seeing the entire terms of the contract in any way. If you do see and don't understand it and sign it anyways, most of the problems would be on your end. HOWEVER, the courts have thrown out contracts that were perfectly legal, that did disclose everything, but were considered one-sided. Everyone who writes a contract has an obligation to make it relatively 'fair'. If a contract is very one sided, depending on a decision at court it can be thrown out. Most people don't know this, and it can be very difficult to find a lawyer to take it to court (not a lot of money in it, and it's not an easy win), so contracts like that still exist today.
@ballistic90: You still have not shown me a single credit card application that does not lay out the terms simply and in plain view, which is what I was asking for in the quote you took out of context. I'm not interested in your Gateway example, because it has nothing to do with the claim you made (the one in which you claim to have seen credit card applications that withhold terms and conditions until AFTER you've received the card). Full disclosure is required by federal law under \"fair lending practices\".
I'm not referring to the pamphlet you receive with the card, I'm referring to the application she and everyone else fills out to even be considered for credit. People very rarely read these T&Cs, including this woman apparently. By applying for the credit account, you are accepting THEIR terms and conditions. Why are you making excuses for her?
You've got on some wild tangent here about contract law, which frankly I'm not that interested in.
@ballistic90: I was wondering how long it would take you to start calling me names.
I'm still waiting for an example of a CC app not disclosing all the terms, as you falsely claim to have seen.
@drmcclin: Agreed. While I am not a huge fan of the bailout/bonus blah blah, if you read the terms of the agreement you SIGNED, its a variable rate. They aren't screwing you because they told you up front.
A great way to not care what the balance is (my Chase card went from 0% in 2007 to 25% in 2009), is to have a savings account for emergencies, not spend what you can't afford, and pay it off in full every month, well before the actual 'due date.'
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-824330-100x100.png\")
I agree that CCC shouldn't raise the interest rate on existing debt. I think you should have a guarantee rate per issue length of the card. Concerning this woman I have some problems. Watching the video doesn't give me the impression she is hurting. If she has problems with debt she should sell some of that crap in the back ground. How about a second job? Better yet, stop using the CC! We are all responsible for the debt we rack up individually.
@Keliken: All she had to do was take them up on the offer to 'opt-out' of the interest rate increase. BofA would effectively close the card for further purchases, and she continues paying it off at the current rate. This is an option which was already offered to her. Unfortunately, this woman seems incapable of actually reading anything she signs. So yeah, obviously the next step is start a \"debtor's revolt\". It would be laughable if it weren't so disgusting.
I just told Chase for the first time that I don't intend to pay my credit cards. Why? Bankruptcy. Yay! Next contestant: Discover card.
@Antiks:
I know bankruptcy is tough to go through, but can you provide more details as to why this is a \"Yay\" for you?
1. She should have never skipped her August payment in protest as she mentions. That made things worse and would effect her FICO score and lending from other places.
2. She is a bit crazy to think she can speak to a BofA person and be offered a 12.99% rate and her statement sent to her the same day would not say that. The statements are probably cut before she even got the call. Let's be fair and give BofA a day or two to update their system.
@drmcclin:
Double agreed, though her FICO won't move with one late payment - usually it doesn't ding until 90 days. It saves the CC companies the trouble of fixing the on time status of folks whose checks got delayed in the mail and such.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1340486-100x100.png\")
@DollaValueLIFO:Yes her FICO score is impervious to consumer rants and protests; algorithms don't watch You Tube videos :)
She says that the \"left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing...\" I don't really want to know where either hand has been.
Ok, +1 for BOA for taking the time and talking to her. -1 for her for basically throwing a fit to get her way. From the original article, I think even The Consumerist said she was on shaky ground.
Though I Do Like the tag \"don't try this at home\" Kudos Laura!!!
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-469349-100x100.png\")
@pmcpa4: I mostly agree with your rankings, although I'll give BoA a +2 for still pulling 12.99%. That's not bad money, especially these days. ;-)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1251980-100x100.png\")
The oldest trick in the book. Bitch in the media about being mistreated and the company will knuckle under about 95% of the time.
12.9% is considered a victory? Perhaps if she'd tried to strike a deal with BOA instead of skipping a payment and then trying to play it off as civil disobedience, she might be able to get credit on slightly more favorable terms.
If you're smart about it, playing the \"0% balance transfer\" game can save you a whole lot of money, as you have a chance to make a dent in the principal.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-498940-100x100.png\")
Imagine what an individual with some actual charisma and the ability to read from a prepared script could've gotten them to do. Watching that video was torture.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-186868-100x100.png\")
Cripes. This story kind of rubs me the wrong way - not because I have any special compassion for BoA (yea right) but because of the Fox-News-ish tone this obviously not-too-bright lady took and seems to be relishing in: she's leading a \"debtor's revolt\" as if lodging some sort of moral high ground protest against medieval debt bondage or \"company store\" indentureship, when the reality is more likely that this woman has a truckload of useless consumer crap paid for on a legally-agreed-upon line of credit which she *chose* to use and abuse. It's distasteful to say the least.
Don't Buy Stuff You Can't Afford.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1240768-100x100.png\")
If she was ugly she wouldn't have gotten the time of day
I hope the bank told her to have a garage sale to sell all that useless crap she's clearly amassed. She made her bed, now she should lie in it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-752907-100x100.png\")
She's not topless so why should I care?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1263041-100x100.png\")
@Tom_Servo: ROTFLOL! I agree 100%! :-)
I wish I was an attractive woman (I'm 0-2 there) so I could make YouTube videos complaining about the consequences of doing something I shouldn't have done.
She's from the Entitlement Generation -- they were raised to be \"special\" and in an environment where everyone gets a trophy, and parents tell their children they're never wrong. In her mind, when she got into debt and couldn't pay it, there's no way it was her fault -- it must have been the bank's fault, especially when it failed to recognize her specialness & raised her rate like a common person.
Google \"Jean Twenge\" and \"economy\" -- she wrote an entire book on it.
Banks received gigantic bailouts to cover their losses from bad consumer debts. So, they have been paid by the taxpayers on all outstanding debts prior to the bailout. Why are these loansharks chasing taxpayers for outstanding debt now? No payment balance prior to the bailout is due anymore.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-116599-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-550329-100x100.png\")
I hope they made her close her account in exchange for the interest rate decrease. Clearly she is a risky borrower and her nonpayment just screws over the rest of us who are responsible with our credit lines.
@mrgenius: She's not a risk compared to executives who spend dozens of times more on their office furniture than she would cost them even if she defaulted on everything.
I would love to see your credit history \"MR GENIUS\" LOL! THEY SAY see missed ONE payment. Oh, horrors!!!!
Wow guys....
Hook, line and sinker.
Well played Genius, well played.
@mrgenius: You know, unless they were from medical expenses due to an emergency, or living expense due to being unemployed. Do you have information that we don't? Do you know how she accumulated that much debt? If you know for sure and have proof, let's all hear it.
Yeah, that's what I thought: You don't. Also, considering the bank took this long to increase the interest, I'd assume she had been paying on time the whole time. Considering that's the terms the bank itself lays out, I don't see how they can raise her rates arbitrarily. Sorry if that DISPLEASES you.
@mrgenius: really? You've gone your whole life thinking you're better than everyone haven't you? How's that working out for you? Not a lot of friends? Lot's of failed relationships? I guess we all should have been able to tell by your ridiculous name. But seriously. Get a clue.
@mrgenius: Well that didn't take long. We got a \"screwing over we responsible users\" post right out of the gate.
Put on a new record, mrgenius.
@mrgenius: I believe in her video she claims to have been a good customer who always made payments on time for 14 years. Your holier than thou attitude disgusts me.
@mrgenius: mrgenius? NOT! Obviously you fail to see what the whole article was about. It has nothing to do with being a risky borrower because the banks are screwing over many who are responsible with their credit lines.
@mrgenius:
Mr. Genius... so how long you been on a credit card companies payroll?