First, I did some Internet searches, and some are for, while others are critical of this organization.  Personally, I am not in favor of everything that this organization’s leadership or members may believe in.  But, I don’t have the time to analyze or become embroiled in discourse about topics like immigration, who is, or should be the president, political parties, the left, right, or middle.

None of these things mentioned above are on my agenda, relative to the ChangeInTerms.com site.  Do I care about these issues?  Yes.  Do I have time to write posts and conduct research on all of these subjects (and their nuances) mentioned above?  No.

Relative to my employment, I also don’t feel inclined to speak out on all of these issues.  On the other hand, I have the right, the responsibility, and the passion for entrepreneurs to address matters that are affecting small businesses.  When credit is tight or unavailable, this impacts small businesses; when consumers are unemployed and spending is constrained, this impacts small businesses.

Not only do I feel passionate about entrepreneurs, I have been one, more than once.  This is why, along with a graduate education which I pursued in order to become academically qualified to teach, I am now an entrepreneurship professor.

Most small businesses, no matter how you slice it, are indeed very small: 0-1 employees.  They are often entrepreneurial bootstrappers.  Bootstrappers start businesses on kitchen tables and in basements and garages; about half of them by my estimates through formal academic research use personal credit cards as a source of capital.  This amounts to over 10 million businesses.

Oh, and that “0-1″ employees group, that number is around 21.7 million.  There are around 29.6 million businesses in the U.S.  So, you could say that over two thirds of all U.S. businesses are actually very small (perhaps a better choice of words would be “tiny”).  Yet, these are the everyday “Jills” and “Joes” who are vital to our economic recovery.

I want to help other people: students, current entrepreneurs, and would-be entrepreneurs.  It also happens that one of my official duties is to be “engaged” with the entrepreneurial community.  This includes conducting research (publishing), and trying to champion small businesses in every way that I can.

It’s my job.  I love it, but from a practical point of view in terms of expectations of my employer, I am supposed to teach, conduct research, serve, and be “engaged.”  If my discipline was political science, maybe I would be blogging on our system of government as a focus; but, my focus here is ending the abuses of credit card companies against small businesses and consumers.  Consumer spending does impact small businesses, employment, and the economy as a whole, as we have seen.

Relative to the Showdown or its organizers, this is the bottom line: I am against the undue influence that the banking and financial services industry tends to exercise over our Congress through its very powerful lobbyists.  Under the present system, we are where we are, today.  Small businesses are in jeopardy, the economy is a mess, people are hurting: “my people” (entrepreneurs) are hurting.

Banks are pushing people into defaults.  The ABA, American Banker’s Association, which obviously represents the interests of banks, is against the industry changing its ways, and I am for the industry changing its ways.  Banks are not working with consumers and small businesses to the extent that they could or should.

I am hurting, personally, because I am separated from my family by virtue of a “crashed” real estate market.  This occurred, essentially, because of a lending industry run amok and bankers’ irresponsibility and greed, with regulators asleep at the switch.  The “bail out” was misdirected, in my opinion.  We should have created loan programs (which would have broken even, instead of adding trillions to our national debt), targeting a recovery in the housing market and the restoration of consumer confidence, before things ever got so bad.

In my early years, I used to write lyrical poetry.  Lately, I’ve been playing a little tune in my head that goes something like this:

“I want to take my boy fishin’

But I find I’m just wishin’

He and I would bait the hooks

And cast our lines in babbling brooks

We’d really reel ‘em in”

We’d catch rainbow trout

Maybe bream, or

Perhaps a leafy branch or two

It wouldn’t matter, son

As long as I’m with you

Here in Western North Carolina, I find myself surrounded by some of the most beautiful terrain on the planet, including places where I could “take my boy fishing.”  But I can’t.  I’m lucky to do my job and get back home each week to take care of chores, pay bills, visit my family briefly, and return.

When I play that song in my head, it makes me want to cry.  If credit card issuers and the banks with which they are associated want to know why I’m going to keep coming, and coming, and coming, all they have to do is recognize that I am deeply motivated by that little tune.

I will continue to fight the greedy, unethical, and misguided policies that have been implemented by these institutions, because “I find I’m just wishing” that I could be with my family, and that we could live in peace.  (Chase just sent another change in terms on one of my wife’s accounts; that was a very bad idea, Chase: I told you to leave me, my wife, and my family the hell alone. READ MY TERMS.)

And, as I have outlined, I continue to fight because it’s also my job.

If you think things are just “hunky-dory” for small businesses and consumers, and the economy at large, well, I am happy for you.  You may be isolated from the pain that others are experiencing.

You can choose to support, or not, the “Showdown in Chicago” protest.  I support that protest, even if I do not agree with everything that others may have in mind in terms of a larger agenda (politics, health care, immigration, et cetera).

If you do support the protest, but are not in the Chicago area, the Americans for Fairness in Lending site has also provided a link for contacting elected officials in the post which states “AFFIL has endorsed the upcoming events in Chicago, and now we’re asking for you to support it too.”

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 9 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: "Bail Out", banks, change in terms, consumers, credit, credit cards, debt, economy, interest, small business

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

In one sense, this story is already well known, at least by virtue of its observable impact.  We have seen it in neighborhoods across America: foreclosures, short-sales, and a devaluation of property values.  Speculators and house flippers were understandably giddy over profits that seemed at the time, easy and never-ending.  But this period of exuberance did end, badly.  Those of us who are concerned with credit card company abuses, are paying the price.  Taxpayers are paying the price.  Investors from around the world are paying the price.

In essence, the mortgage industry sold “instant gratification” to buyers.  Yes, buyers “signed the dotted line,” and certainly, many knew (or should have known, if they lied about matters such as their income and obligations on “stated income” loan applications — that’s why the slang, “liar’s loans,’ came into being), that they too, were taking a risk.

Everyone was gambling.  But in common, the core belief that drove this scenario was the notion that housing prices would continue to rise.  Refinancing, to take “cash out” of real estate investment gains (or otherwise leverage the cash from appreciation in property values), enabled people to buy even more.  They used that money for anything under the sun: vacations, home improvements, adult toys (and “toy haulers”).

We now know this was a fallacy.  Anyone who may be watching squirrels gathering nuts on the ground for the coming winter can use this as an analogy for what many people did not do.  There are many adages which capture this failing, but perhaps the one (which in history seems to repeat itself) that best captures the miscalculation is this one: “What goes up, must come down.”

The “House of Cards” production does a great job of explaining, how we who are fighting credit card company abuses got where we are today.  Banks bought bad investments.  They want to recoup their losses by dipping into other sources of cash.  First, it was the bail out money: your money, and that of your children and grandchildren.  Second, it is every dollar and quarter, dime, nickel and penny, from fees, interest rate increases, and payment increases that banks can impose on the backs of people who still take pride in trying to pay their bills and fulfilling their obligations.  (But for how long?  Most people who walk away and “leave their keys on the counter” have simply given up, knowing that they can never pay.)

Obviously, the lax regulation that allowed Wall Street to profit and party on what we now know are toxic assets (I’m not an accountant, but it seems to me that a so-called “toxic asset” is a bad debt!) enabled a complex scheme with many participants to arise.

Unfortunately, as banks squeeze those of us who are still standing, more and more “able bodied borrowers,” including small businesses which account for much of our economy, suffocate.  Layoffs and fear have led to the destruction of consumer confidence — so spending slows to a crawl.  Here we are.

I personally found that one of the most interesting interview questions that was posed to various participants in the CNBC piece had to do with “feeling guilty,” for having been a part of this debacle.  The body language told a different story than the words that were uttered, slowly and carefully, in several instances, consistently along the lines of “just part of the food chain.”  Well, I already know where I am in the food chain: near the bottom.  However, when these banks try to “eat” what’s left of the rest of us, I want to make sure that we at least leave a very bad taste in their mouth.

Just a Few More Notes

This present post is very difficult to write.  I am separated from my family by virtue of real estate.  I have a house that has not sold, even though it is well cared for and in a decent middle-class neighborhood.  I have debts that are primarily associated with a decision to go to graduate school, trying to help others by becoming academically qualified to teach.  Those who walk away from their own homes (or who are forced to leave by eviction); those who enabled this to happen (see the documentary for the entire “food chain”); and I, along with my wife and children, are entangled.

Credit card companies (i.e., the banks that run them), are dealing with issues such as losses and liquidity pressures.  Nevertheless, because the banks are equivalent to “Goliath,” and we could be likened to “David,” naturally, ChangeInTerms.com and its supporters are in a position such that if we don’t throw “sticks and stones” to defend ourselves in any way that we can, we will be destroyed.

Sadly, I could be sympathetic to the banks’ problems, if they weren’t so mean and uncaring about what happens to others.  The most typical response to consumers (some of whom are the entrepreneurs we desperately need to nourish for a recovery) when they call to “negotiate,” just as appears to be the case with distressed homeowners, is that banks don’t want to work things out.  Rather, they just want to take everything that they can get, forcibly, mercilessly, and immediately, no matter what the consequences may be for individuals — and when taken in the aggregate — for the economy and this nation’s citizenry as a whole.

This behavior on the part of banks is sure to lead us all down a path to further destruction, I predict, unless we “work things out.”  How do we do that (those of us who are on the receiving end of banks’ callous, greedy, untenable dispositions)?  That’s really quite simple.  Anyone who has survived a schoolyard bully knows that the only way to prevail, is to make him or her very afraid of you.  If you are a small person, then you may need to assemble an army and gang-up on that bully.

I actually have a post in draft mode on the subject of “somebody should do it.”  Here’s what it boils down to: all of us “little people” must band together (this is a tiny example, but I sometimes get frustrated: why have I written several times, trying to get someone to print-out a free protest T-shirt, and send me a picture for the site?  Scared; too busy; afraid to raise a “stink” in public — I can understand all of these, because they describe me, but I still fight).

The formula for returning to a period of economic stability is also fairly simple.  Banks are in the business of taking in deposits, and lending at a profit.  Profits are a function of “time and terms.”  If they wanted to do it, they could institute all kinds of creative workarounds, because that’s what ends up happening in settlements.  Why they don’t want to work with people until the situation becomes such that a settlement is for “pennies on the dollar” (with the losses being shifted to those who are still standing, financially), is hard to fathom.  I suppose it’s because enough people have not has yet boycotted media for running credit card companies’ ads; written to affinity partners; threatened the reelection prospects of representatives; or gone “viral,” like the Debtor’s Revolt video.

If you aren’t willing to combine forces and join the fight, then you can count on being fleeced, beaten, and terrorized by such a bully.  We have already seen that this bully’s greed is insatiable.  I guess you’ll get involved once you’ve “lost your backpack and lunch money,” one too many times.

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: "Bail Out", banks, consumers, credit, credit cards, debt, economy, fees, interest, interest rate, regulation, small business

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

“AB,” stands for Anonymous Banker, and AB’s site goes by that same name with the subhead, “An Insiders View Into the Banking Industry and Economic Crisis.”

In reading some of AB’s posts, written from the point of view of someone who has spent the bulk of his/her career working with small businesses, I find that he/she is just as disgusted and alarmed as I am about what is to come for our nation and our economy, if we don’t restore confidence.

And frankly, given that I am still stuck in a perfectly maintained home in a decent middle class neighborhood (that would have ordinarily sold in about 60 days, before the depression), I have a hard time mustering up much confidence these days that a life of misery for my family will not go on for many months to come; it’s already been two years.

As I have said several times before, in my opinion, this is because we bailed out big banks and their executives (with their perks, jets, and bonuses), instead of creating loan programs (that would have been break even) for distressed homeowners.  If we had simply addressed the problem that started this mess in the beginning — and it wasn’t even a big mystery to unravel like a health problem or an intermittent rattle coming from a car — real estate, I wouldn’t be here today, using the D-word.

This all started with bad news about real estate foreclosures.  Consumers were scared about what was happening in their neighborhoods, rightfully so.  Consumers lost confidence.  Then, we witnessed one of the biggest giveaways to corporate executives in history.  Outrage over AIG parties, trips and bonuses resulted in no substantive penalties or reforms.  Business “as usual” ruled the day.

The financial services industry greased the palms of Congress, and everybody (except the citizens at large who have to foot the bill), still had a really nice time.  Meanwhile, the cost of fuel for a day to run one of their jets or yachts is probably about the amount of money any of us serfs would need to “make our month,” or give us the wiggle room we need to negotiate the sale or purchase of a home.

After everyone lost confidence, consumers tightened their purse stings and stopped spending.  This led to trouble in the auto industry and another round of bailout disbursements.  The fact that one of our economy’s biggest industries (it’s not just the automakers, but all of the interdependent businesses: steel, glass, plastics, et cetera) was in trouble and would also need a bail out, further shook confidence in government’s ability to address fundamental issues and root causes.

Threats to the survival of  small businesses, accompanied by (i.e., resulting in even more) unemployment have followed.  AB states that he/she “[has] been a small business advocate for thirty years,” and further observed:

“Each day I encounter consumers and business owners that had been able to keep current on their revolving debt. But with each rate increase in the midst of declining revenues, brought about by this economic crisis CREATED BY THE BANKING INDUSTRY, more and more consumers and business owners are falling behind. The rate increases are a self-fulfilling prophesy. The banks say they need an increase in rates to help offset the increase in credit card losses. I say, the increase in rates is CAUSING a good portion of the credit card losses.”

A few months ago (July 22, 2009), someone attempted to post a comment, which I suppressed:

“Perhaps instead of buying a domain name, you should budget properly and pay your bills off in time.”

Not wanting to fire off in a knee-jerk reaction, here’s my answer:

I do pay my bills on time.  I always have.  This site is not about me, it’s about justice, fairness, efficiency of the banks for the benefit of a citizenry at large, small businesses and consumers in particular, and “the economy, stupid.”  If you want to “dis” me, while demonstrating a lack of understanding or caring about people or the issues that impact us all (and our children, their children, and so on): “budget properly” and get your own site.  Since ChangeInTerms.com is a pg-rated site, I can’t respond in more basic terms such as “‘expletive’ you, too!” (that you would more likely have the intellectual capacity to grasp).  But in “southern-speak,” I can say: “Bless Your Heart.”

A glimmer isn’t a recovery and there will be no recovery, without confidence.  There is not going to be any confidence as long as we are trapped, squeezed, and coming soon to a household and small business budget near you: taxed to death (and beyond the grave).  Small businesses and the economy — all of us — must have a properly functioning banking system, and we don’t.

Banks are making very bad decisions, causing defaults (this is especially tragic when account holders were making their payments, on time) when if they would instead work with people, they could get their money back (not to mention maintaining a loyal customer base instead of destroying their own brands).  They could prevent a frightening downward spiral and “self-fulfilling prophesy” from coming true.

The purpose of the banking system is to provide an exchange system for our currency and our economy.  It is failing in its fulfillment of that purpose.  AB knows it, I know it, and anyone with enough brains to buy a domain name and try to fight back before it’s too late knows it.  Bless Your Heart, too, if you don’t join the fight!

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 11 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: "Bail Out", banks, consumers, credit, debt, economy, penalties, small business

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Let’s see, if a “similar lot” was $70k “not more than 9 months ago,” but now worth $24,900 (assuming enough similarity to be considered a comparable in a real estate appraisal), then the loss was $45,100 ($5011 per month).

Thank goodness, in these days of economic turmoil (with credit card companies doing all that they can to bully consumers and strangle small businesses), there are “RECESSION PROOF!” safe havens where those who have the financial wherewithal can invest!

Oh well, not to worry, with the “real estate professionals” working the market here in Murfreesboro, TN, it will probably be a while before our present home sells and we can move on to NC, anyway.  Yep, yesterday, one of those “professionals” called from our driveway to show a (local) “looker,” who wanted to see our home.  Forget the one hour notice request on the MLS, “we’re here to see your house!”

It’s days like those that make me want to give up.  But I don’t.  I make the drive.  305 miles, each way, every week, to work (plus the “in-town” mileage, when I am in NC).

I have a deadline to meet this weekend.  I’m working on a conference paper (on credit cards and small businesses).  You see, if I did “give up” on selling our home (by walking out like so many others have done), then I would not have much of an argument any more, when I try to speak out on behalf of struggling entrepreneurs (who are being squeezed — mercilessly — by credit card companies).

I have paid my bills and met my obligations, no matter what.  (As I drive during the treacherous trips through the mountains on I-40 eastbound in eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina, I at least know that if something happens to me, I’ll go with a clean conscience; I’m guessing that an apt description of “hell” is being a credit card account holder for eternity, so I definitely want to avoid going there.)

The FED (which is — unbeknown by most citizens — “owned” by the national banks and not “Federal”) and all of the bailouts have done nothing but enrich executives, who have enjoyed the parties, trips, perks, bonuses, and salaries of corporate big-wigs while they have had the same time, engaged in a reckless campaign against ordinary citizens (worldwide).  Meanwhile, homeowners, small businesses, and middle class consumers at large are slowly having the life sucked out of their wallets.

Just imagine: What if we invested $750 billion in bail out funds on the 21.7* million very small businesses in the United States?

The numbers are so staggering, they’ll make you dizzy (especially if you wear eyeglasses):

$1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars) x 750 = $750,000,000,000

$750,000,000,000 / 21,700,000 (very small businesses) = $34,562.21 (each)

I’d certainly bet that if the first round of bail out funds had been invested in small rather than big businesses, we would have stimulated the economy.  But no, we bailed out big banks and car companies, where a handful of executives (each typically earning in excess of a million dollars in salary, so you do the math) became even richer in bad times, on the backs of all of us.  I know that these executives are about the only ones who can afford scooping up deals on lakefront property right now.  Further, as I have previously written, we could have averted the worst of the mortgage and foreclosure crisis as well.

By the way, regarding one of biggest problems, unemployment (which as you recall, came next in our downward spiral — while we bailed out “big” businesses and executives), and much of the pain that has come from that, could have been avoided if we had invested in small businesses.  Also according to the SBA Office of Advocacy, small businesses: “Employ just over half of all private sector employees”; “pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll”; and, “have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.”

Want to know why we’re suffocating, despite ever-so-slight signs of recovery?  A relatively small number of big businesses and their executives have prospered, and the rest of us, along with our children, and grandchildren, will pay, and pay, and pay.

* Those so small that they have no employees; number taken from SBA Office of Advocacy 2009 FAQs — out of 29.6 million total U.S. businesses.  Yes, the vast majority of all businesses are small businesses.  The vast majority of start-ups “bootstrap,” and many of these use personal and business credit cards as a source of capital.

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 5 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: "Bail Out", advocacy, banks, business credit, consumers, credit, credit cards, economy, small business

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Apparently, her video, “DEBTORS REVOLT BEGINS NOW!,” is drawing a lot of attention on the Internet.  According to Mr. Delaney, the video (released on September 8, 2009) had received “96,000 views as of Monday morning [September 14]“; in checking just now, the site reports 175,023 views (it was 151,204 yesterday, when I started composing this post!):

Click here to view the embedded video.

Not surprisingly, with that kind of trajectory in viewership, comments have also been robust.  Many are supportive, and many are not.  Since I have this blog as a platform, obviously, this post is my primary place for adding my own “comment.”

First of all, I personally have not taken the same approach in refusing to pay (actually, her refusal appears to be “unless she was offered a lower rate,” which was raised to 30 percent as of July).  I do think 30% is obscene (in the questioning period after my testimony before Congress I remarked along the lines of “how high did interest rates need to go before everyone agreed that it was legalized loan-sharking…40%, higher?”).

I do understand that such a refusal as has been pursued by Ms. Minch may appear to be the “biggest stick” that an individual borrower may have if he or she feels that it is impossible to negotiate any other way in the face of interest rate or minimum payment hikes.  I am not a lawyer, so I can’t really advise someone one way or another in taking such an approach.  However, I can say that generally, “it depends” (on the value of one’s assets, his or her credit rating or concern for that rating, and other circumstances).

Notwithstanding the above, relative to her premise — starting a revolution — I agree that fighting back is necessary.  (Respectfully, she claims that hers is “the proverbial first shot fired in an American debtors’ revolution,” but she is not the first — consumer advocates and others have been fighting this battle for years.)  Nevertheless, how or even if one chooses to fight back is matter of heated debate (judging by comments under her videos).

The ChangeInTerms.com site has predominantly featured Chase since I began actively blogging here, but as you will note, “the cause” is ending the abusive treatment of customers by the credit card industry at large, and I have long been against that abusiveness.  I think that fighting back is best approached using well researched information, along with technologies to disseminate anti-marketing messages (obviously, a viral video is one such technology, regardless of how one feels about the negotiation tactic that Ms. Minch has decided to employ).

In reading some of the negative comments, I found myself saddened.  Numerous remarks were personal attacks against this individual, accusing her of buying cosmetics, or whatever (the point was, according to the comments, that she borrowed money frivolously and she shouldn’t have done that — time to pay the price).

What made me sad was that it’s hard for me to stomach some of the negative comments underneath a video like this.  Many people seem to assume that anyone in debt has gotten in that position because they were frivolous, or stupid (“read your contract”).  These individuals who make such assumptions about “read your contract” completely ignore, however, other tenets under the law, especially “bad faith” versus “good faith.”

The contracts written by credit card companies are bad faith agreements, which seems to be alright with anyone who is able to “pay cash.”  What is interesting to me, is that many of these holier than though individuals passing judgment would “holler to high heaven,” if they were on the receiving end of a bad faith contract themselves.  What are other “bad faith” contract examples?

How about the nightmare stories concerning home improvements (when jobs go bad, or are not completed)?  Let those “paid cash for my home” buyers get into one of those bad faith deals, and they’d scream, too.  The mechanic “said” your transmission was rebuilt, but a minor repair was made, instead (because that was all that was really needed: again, “bad faith”).

I could go on and on…but if “screwing the other person over is fine, as long as you don’t do do it to me” is the mentality out there, what a merciless, horrible future, we face.  Our unsuspecting children will have it even worse, and eventually they will learn to lie, cheat, steal, and otherwise be “out to get the other person, before he or she gets me.”  What a vicious downward spiral.

I would venture to guess that 99% of the “read your contract” folks slept through the part about the necessity for good faith that underpins all contractual agreements in whatever business law class they may have taken (if they took one at all).  For that matter, the “rule of law” itself means nothing, to individuals or a citizenry at large in the situation under which laws apply, when the intent of parties is to willfully act in bad faith.

What really frustrates me, is questioning my own life in the face of such mean-spirited, presumptuous, holier than thou “don’t spend what you don’t have” remarks.  It’s not my video, but I (too) spent money “I did not have.”  I get the feeling that these critical individuals who are passing judgment, would not care that I did so going to graduate school, so that I could be academically qualified to teach.  I wanted to try to help people, and I have.  Thus, I question myself: “But at what cost?”

The comments from those who “do have” (apparently some have a whole lot — they even think that beyond credit cards, people should have no debt, not even a mortgage — must be fabulous, buying houses for cash) really hurt.  Some were laden with expletives and made me feel like anyone who is in debt, for any reason, is scorned.  They really are merciless, barbaric, Roman Emperor “thumbs down” callous; many are not even civil to one another.  If comments like that come to this blog, I do not want them.  We can all disagree, but I’m not interested in a brawl.

Did I make a mistake, going to graduate school?  Well, it was certainly a financial mistake.  Did I make a mistake, thinking I could make a difference by teaching?  I don’t think so.  Not every student is going to like every professor, or learn, but most seem to learn from what I provide in the classroom (or on my faculty site, et cetera).  Am I sorry I borrowed money to go to graduate school?  Absolutely, yes.

Could I have gone to graduate school without borrowing money?  I would have been too old to teach, if I waited and saved enough to “pay cash.”

Would I live my life differently, if I had it to do over again?  I would not change some things:

I’m far from perfect, and I’ve certainly made mistakes, but I’ve always done the best I could;

I pay my bills on time and meet my obligations;

I’m a good citizen: I pay my taxes, although I’m very concerned that government is spending “our money” on the wrong things at the wrong time, and at levels that are beyond all of our means (for example, see my previous article, “A low cost ‘2-3-4′ assumable step-loan program would have prevented much of what has ailed us and what will be ailing us for decades“);

I earn an honest living: I don’t wake up each morning trying to think of ways to screw people over (like many credit card companies do); instead, I try to help them;

I am a hard worker;

I take pride in maintaining my home and I take care of what I do have;

I was a very good student, in graduate school;

I have been completely faithful to my wife (I do tell “wife jokes” on occasion…but wives, including mine, tell “husband jokes,” too); I love my wife and my children;

I am a person of faith (but I do not believe that is my right to judge others in their faith, or any lack thereof);

I accept other people (and their individual and cultural perspectives — indeed, I love learning about these);

When I am gone I will leave what I hope will be pleasant “memories” for some whose paths in life have crossed my own;

My writings, art, and photographs (as forms of expression) may be seen as a contribution, by somebody.

Meanwhile, the other thing that really hurts is the selfishness and ignorance suggested by some comments under the aforementioned video.  When I say “ignorance,” I mean the inability to think (apparently) about the interconnectedness of it all, beyond individuals, consumers and what they buy using credit cards.

This is not strictly a consumer or consumption issue.  It’s a lot of interrelated concerns that are at stake here: “fairness,” whatever that is ultimately defined to be (in consideration of usury), being the biggest one.   Political processes and corruption (credit card industry lobbyists having more influence that “we the people” — millions upon millions of credit card holders) is also a major issue.  This is especially exacerbated with the media too afraid to engage in real journalism because of the threat of lost ad revenues, so they make these things a “last page” mention (or ignore them).  (I have not seen one hard hard-hitting story about the Congressional testimony delivered by Chase executives who used opt outs to describe the means by which customers were treated fairly, yet Chase turned right around and refused to provide an opt out with its infamous 5% — payment-jacking — change in terms.)

I am also referring to issues related to the economy, which is especially in need of nurturing small businesses (the vast majority of which are started by entrepreneurial “bootstrapping,” and may very likely entail using HELOCs, credit cards, and/or other non-traditional sources of capital).

Importantly, bootstrapping, including using credit cards to start businesses has been done successfully.  I would offer Google as a bootstrapping start-up example, a company that has gone on to generate wealth and employment for thousands.

Now, I am not saying that start-ups should use credit cards; rather, I am merely pointing out that they do use credit cards.  And they do so in very large numbers.  Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t, but entrepreneurs are typically passionate people who are driven to try (there are so many obstacles, they need to be).  Furthermore, without the successful efforts of some who do make it, civilization as we know it would not exist (if you’re reading this on a computer, thank many entrepreneurs who each played a part in bringing that computer to market).

And yes, I acknowledge that it would be nice to “save up” and “pay cash” to start a business (buy a house or a car, or go to graduate school).  Unfortunately, in many instances, it would be too late; i.e., with entrepreneurship, it can be the case that an opportunity or market that isn’t seized promptly, is lost permanently.

Despite this present post, or all of the ChangeInTerms.com site’s content, there apparently will always be comments by dismissive, naive, selfish individuals who either cannot or will not grasp the issues.  Have I make a mistake, fighting the abusive treatment of customers by credit card companies (again, I have asked myself)?  I’ve outlined who I am and what I believe in, and I don’t think so.

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 13 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: "Bail Out", consumers, credit, credit cards, debt, interest, interest rate, small business, Testimony

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

As you may recall (in connection with questions about exactly what Chase and other banks were doing with YOUR bail out money), following its September 2008 acquisition of Washington Mutual’s banking operations, including the former WaMu brand, Chase now operates more than 5,000 branches nationwide (as is also indicated in the cited press release).  Here’s a link to a handy branch location finder (you might find this useful as you read further).

Meanwhile, the purpose of this post is to convey that some Chase branch managers may not be familiar with protections that we have as ordinary citizens, such as “freedom of speech.”

I realize that it would be nice, from the bank’s point of view, if we were all serfs with no rights whatsoever (economically enslaved), but we still have the right to protest.

For months, Alessandro Machi has been doing a fabulous job of protesting through his live appearances with Daily-Protest.com signs.  And recently, I have been contacted by another fellow “Comrade in the Chase Resistance Movement,” who has also been garnering the approval of motorists who have honked in favor of his message as they have observed his “DON’T TRUST” (side 1) — “CHASE” (side 2) sign.

Of course, Chase branch managers don’t really seem to care for free speech, coming from customers, and that’s too bad.

I do find it ironic that the “that’s too bad we can do anything we please attitude” regularly exhibited by Chase employees (not afraid of the impotent OCC) toward customers has now backfired: Customers have the right to speak out in protest against Chase, for having done as it darned well pleased (in a manner that many customers consider to be outrageous and hurtful).

I have been asked not to promote the name of our new-found friend and fellow protester, but he has supplied plenty of other material and permission to share it.  Taken from his emails, here is a description of the activities with which he has been involved:

**************************************************

“The first 2 days, the bank manager tried to intimidate me any way he could:

1)       He attempted to “video” me with his cell phone.  I blocked my face like an accused criminal!

2)       He asked me if I had a permit.  No, I didn’t.  But I told him that I had already personally visited the Buena Park Police Department the day before and they told me I didn’t need one if I stayed on the sidewalk.

3)       He told me I could not distribute anything.  At that point, I told him to call the police.  He said they were already called!

4)       Police arrived.  The police officer did not even get out of his car!  The officer told me that the bank manager claimed I was blocking their private driveway.  This was a complete fabrication!  I politely suggested that the officer review the bank manager’s cell phone video and the officer will NOT see that on the video!  The police officer then drove away without taking any further statement from the bank personnel!  I went back to holding my sign!

5)       By the second day, I was allowing the bank manager to “video” my face with his cell phone.  As soon as I did that, he wasn’t interested in videoing me any more!

Intimidation didn’t work, so now the branch is in the ignore mode.

For the record, the branch number is #1281, at the corner of the very busy intersection of Beach Blvd. and La Palma Ave., Buena Park, CA (caddy corner to Knott’s Berry Farm – Famous landmark in Buena Park, CA – The nation’s first “themed” amusement park! – Origin of the “Boysenberry” and built before Disneyland, also in Orange County, CA!).

It seems odd to me that the branch numbers do not appear on their website!

Here’s what else I have done.  I have gone to about 7 branches now, and have personally handed the “BEWARE” flyer [see below] to the bank manager (if possible) or an assistant manager, and informed him or her that this flyer will be given to all of their customers.  I then walk out of the branch.  They usually look dumbfounded!  But, from what I gather, I think they have a procedure in place for this kind of activity.  I believe, at the very least, that they are instructed to fax the “flyer” to their District Manager.  My 7 branches are in 2 counties, Orange and Los Angeles!  I hope Chase is buzzing behind the scenes with one or more District Managers receiving the same flyer from all of these different branches.

This is something people can do!  Take the flyer to their local Chase branch.  As many branches as possible!  Ask to speak to the manager.  Tell him or her that this flyer will be handed out to all their customers.  And then leave!”

**************************************************

One word of caution to folks: If you decide to mount your own protest, make sure you are familiar with your rights and responsibilities under your own local laws (and keep in mind that ChangeInTerms.com is not engaged in rendering professional or legal advice).

For example, you will note that the police department in Buena Park was consulted, first.  Further, in the above instance, the flyer could not be given to any customers on bank property (doing so would have been considered trespassing).  But, as a customer, people do have a right to “communicate” (for example, with the branch manager and/or his or her designated representative). 

I also learned that one of the benefits of the location associated with the photos below was as follows:

“By the way, another advantage of this branch at this busy intersection is because I believe the bus stop at this corner is a bus schedule, timepoint. That means that if a bus arrives there ahead of schedule, the driver must wait there until the scheduled departure time. So, I use that opportunity to hand the flyer to the bus driver and tell him or her to spread the word to all of their friends and work associates! Not one driver has refused it! Hey, they need some light reading to fill these pauses in their day!”

Here are the photos (we love them!):

Beach Blvd., north of La Palma Ave. looking north-west. “DON’T TRUST”

Beach Blvd., north of La Palma Ave. looking north-west. “CHASE”

Here is a link to the handout (about which our friend stated, “I would like to see this flyer go nationwide!” — so would we!).

Finally, here is a copy of a press release that was sent to The Orange County Register (no answer — but there are plenty of other members of the media who may appreciate having a copy):

For Immediate Release

To: Michael Mello, The Orange County Register

08/04/2009

Buena Park, CA

Hundreds, if not thousands of motorists were greeted today driving north on Beach Blvd., north of La Palma Ave. by the words, “DON’T TRUST CHASE”. Those words were emblazoned upon a sign held by a yet to be identified male protester in front of the Chase Bank Branch located on that corner. Many motorists felt inclined to honk in support of those words.

Apparently, this individual has grievances with the “Change in Terms” on credit cards issued by Chase Bank. Upon learning of the presence of the protester, the bank manager emerged from the branch in 90+ degree heat, and proceeded to video the individual with his cell phone. When that did not encourage the protester to leave, the Buena Park Police were called to complain that the protester was allegedly, illegally blocking their private driveway on Beach Blvd. Upon arrival, the police determined that no violations had occurred and they drove off without taking any further statement from bank personnel.

According to the protester, these daily protests will continue until an acceptable resolution is reached with Chase Bank.

###

I can’t help but wonder if Chase sent any of its infamous change in terms notices to police officers (maybe the one who was called by Chase’s Branch Manager!)?

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 29 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: "Bail Out", banks, change in terms, credit, credit cards, interest, notices

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Low cost assumable step-loan programs would have prevented much of what has ailed us and what will be ailing us for decades, had they been the first response on the part of government and policy makers.  They also would have likely prevented all the bail outs.  For example, loans starting at 2%, graduating to 3%, and then remaining fixed at 4% for the life of the loan (not the way Chase means, i.e., doesn’t really mean: “for the life of the loan”; rather, “fixed at 4% for the life of the loan, no kidding – we won’t come back and screw you in two years” loans) would have been a robust configuration to get the housing market moving again. 

The assumable part is a key element.  At the risk of dating myself, I have lived long enough to remember a time when real estate loans were high enough (e.g., 17 to 18 percent) such that the question was not so much about the price of the house; rather, it was did the seller have an assumable loan at a more reasonable rate?  It was about the “paper,” not the price or the property.  The idea is to have a piece of paper that was so attractive that every potential buyer would have lined up out the door to purchase real estate, and even if one buyer later defaulted subsequent purchasers would want to grab the “paper” that was associated with a given home (hence, keeping the home from falling into distress, despite the default).   

A simple loan program as I have sketched out above for real estate financing, had it been put in place early on, could have prevented altogether or at least significantly lessoned the impact of the foreclosure crisis and all that has followed with bail out after bail out, and government spending programs galore.  Stimulating entrepreneurs on main street, always a good idea even without a crisis, would have been another productive step. 

Several economists have told me that I’m pretty close in my guess that such a loan program could have been operated at “break-even,” had the government taken such steps (instead of helping AIG throw more parties and bailing out the likes of Chase with $25 billion in taxpayer’s money).  I hate to say it, but we’re not going to break even on the money we’ve sent to America’s corporate elite.  Same old story, especially in hard times: the rich buy out the poor and get more, while the poor give up what little they have.  As human history might suggest, eventually, in the face of serfdom uprisings start, tyrants are displaced (e.g., killed or banished), and the cycle repeats itself.

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 5 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: "Bail Out", credit

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

In January, Chase, with no opt-out allowed, raised my (along with 400,000 other customers) payment from 2% ($416/month) to 5% ($1,025/month)….and has demanded payments at the same high 5% level ever since. This month the payment was $842….still more than twice as much as the payment required in December.

Last Friday, I received my Chase statement on another account (4.99% promotional rate “fixed for the life of the loan”" with an outstanding balance of $6,029.28) with $0 minimum payment due. Along with a note that says:

“You have the flexibility to skip a payment. You must pay past due and overlimit balances immediately. However, the remaining minimum payment for this month has been reduced to $0. Finance charges will continue to accrue. To reduce your balance, feel free to make a payment.”

Of course, I have no past due or overlimit balances but what this very telling statement means is that Chase is inviting customers who do have past due and overlimit balances….to skip the regular minimum monthly payment!

So – Chase, a company which absolutely could not survive with a mere $25 BILLION in taxpayer bail-out funds; a company that had no choice but to put the screws to 400,000 of their very best customers to fill their cashless coffers; is now a company so flush with cash that they are allowing customers (at least one good customer [me ] and apparently some bad customers with past due and over limit amounts) to SKIP making their minimum monthly payments on accounts for which the payment requirement remains at 2%.

Then, presumably because Chase hopes I am feeling so good about not having to make a monthly payment this month, they offer this suggestion, “Save $100* r/t. Book a round-trip flight on British Airways worldwide…between March 23-Aug 31, 2009. Offer ends June 30, 2009.” *Terms and conditions apply.

Chase includes no mention of what the terms and conditions might be (though if they can entice me to charge my airfare on British Airways to this account, and pay for other travel expenses with it, the sky is the limit for interest on the new charges). But that’s OK. History with this company tells us that even when Chase provides specific enumeration of all their “terms and conditions”, the terms and conditions are subject to change – for any reason or for no reason. All part of the Chase adventure into The Twilight Zone!

© pdurant for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 5 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: "Bail Out", monthly minimum payment

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

We were always ready to show with an immaculate and well cared for home, “staged” and with all of the right fragrances, a shine on the appliances, and cleanliness otherwise, inside, under, outside.  We also cut the price: again, and again, and again, and again, trying to be competitive with the market.  Nevertheless, I have been working in North Carolina during the past academic year, and my family has been back in Tennessee.  My wife and I are “separated,” except by virtue of real estate, rather than by marital woes or choice.

The separation and commuting back and forth have been a little taste of hell.  This may also explain — as I have been paying “double” on housing costs during this period of time — why it is that when Chase sent its change in terms notice, it did make me “sick to my stomach” (Brian quoting me, and now me quoting him).

My father was a fighter pilot, and his being called away for military service while I was a child is something I still remember well.  Our situation (that of my wife, children, and myself) has not been that bad, since I’m not being shot at.  But it has certainly been challenging, nonetheless.  I thank those who are serving and protecting us in the military, now.

The aforementioned surgery was timed to coincide with a spring break the following week, and thanks to colleagues at Western Carolina University who have been extremely kind to me, I made some arrangements to fill in for an advising day and one of my classes during the week of the surgery itself.

After spring break was over, I backed out of my driveway in Tennessee, with my wife left essentially in the care of our two children.  I had pulled down everything we could think of from cabinets and closets so that food, towels, blankets, cooking utensils, toilet paper, and other necessities for their survival, camp-out-style, could be reached.  It’s not as though I was the one who had the surgery, but I felt terrible, leaving.

Brian impressed me greatly, not just as a journalist, but as a human being.  We spoke and emailed several times, and he regularly inquired about my wife’s recovery.  The first time we talked, he was immediately warm and conversationally generous — coming across as the kind of person I’d enjoy having as a guest at a back-yard Bar-B-Que (I love cooking, but my wife says I brag too much when I’m in the kitchen; nevertheless, I invited her for dinner for our first date over two decades ago, so you decide!).  Brian is also intellectually vibrant, and I enjoyed our talks.

Brian had nominated me as a candidate for one of the photos to be included in his article, which I now know is entitled, “About That New, ‘Friendly’ Consumer Contract” (April 30, 2009, online; May 11, 2009, print). At the time, I did not understand that the decision would be made elsewhere by editors, so I was scrambling for a tie and accessories, which I did not have with me in Tennessee when Brian was conducting his initial interview.

I tell you all of this to give you context.  I’ve been praised on this site for fighting Chase, and the abuses of credit card companies in general.  However, I’m just a regular person who like many others before me, is working hard to take care of my family, and trying to do right by others (such as students and credit card holders who are either consumers or small business owners).  At the risk of employing an old cliché, I put my pants on one leg at a time, just like anybody else.

I was generally very pleased with the article.  If it’s not clear by this point in my post, Brian Grow was very “decent” towards me and I appreciated the way he treated me during the interview process.  He’s a good guy.

I had hoped for a little less “about me” and a little more about the small business issue.  That being said, if the article directs traffic to the ChangeInTerms.com site, at least visitors may realize that my advocacy is “not so much” about me or any of the personal trials and tribulations that my family and I have faced (we consider ourselves very fortunate, in fact — my wife is much better at this point), but about the issue of abusive treatment of customers by credit card companies.

As can be ascertained from Brian’s article (page 3 of the Internet version), after several sickening months Chase did back down relative to my particular account.  Yet, I have not backed down, and I do not intend to do so, unless and until Chase issues a press release, and admits that it made a mistake relative to all account holders.

Brian was nice, when he stated that “abrupt changes have turned into a public-relations challenge for Chase.”  However, let’s be more direct.  “Chase didn’t admit any wrongdoing” (ibid).  That’s typical, but  the New York Attorney General flatly said that “Truth-in-lending laws prohibit this very conduct.”  Chase apparently even tried to infer that because “there were ‘no negotiations’ with Cuomo’s office,” that it was not engaged in wrongdoing.  I’d like to see this smokescreen cleared by suggesting that the most likely reason that there were no negotiations is because Chase was in violation of Truth-in-Lending-Laws.

I wanted to be a pilot like my dad; indeed, as a boy I dreamed of traveling even farther, in the space program (eyeglasses intervened).  Things don’t always turn out like what you may have imagined, hoped for, or planned.  But here’s what I do know now, credit card companies: with little or no provocation, you have attacked my former colleague, my wife, my former neighbor (an entrepreneur), me (and therefore my whole family), and millions of other undeserving account holders — consumers and small businesses.  Your lack of restraint is unprecedented, especially after taking bail out money and during a volatile time when we are all struggling in a weakened economy.  And we’re now banding together.

My dad used to quip the old pilot’s joke that “any landing you walk away from is a good one” (humor aside, I can understand that point of view; earlier jets were notoriously dangerous).  Well, abusive credit card companies (especially you, Chase): we’re going to “shoot you and your fancy corporate jets down” with anti-marketing missiles, alternative financing sources, lawsuits, and regulation that you royally deserve to receive after what you have perpetrated with such ruthlessness.  These actions against customers, orchestrated by scheming executives, whose only moral code is apparently unbridled greed, will end.

The next time you “kick me when I’m down,” you’d better make sure I’m dead.  I’ve been very “friendly,” thus far, and so have the vast majority of other account holders.  We’ve been paying our bills and meeting our obligations no matter what we have individually and severally been confronting in our own respective lives.  Therefore, abusive credit card companies, you’d better straighten up and fly right.

I recently celebrated another birthday (alone; I’ll be home soon for my cake, dear), and I’m old enough to not want a fight, but still young enough to declare to abusive credit card companies:

NOW I’M (STILL) COMING AFTER YOU

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 15 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: "Bail Out", advocacy, banks, change in terms, consumers, credit, economy, regulation, small business

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

A representative from Chase Executive offices just called me about my email to Gordon Smith. Their position is that the statements made to Congress about Chase having an opt out program for those who do not agree with changes to their terms is outdated. They state that 2 changes have occurred since that testimony and therefore Carter Franke’s assurances do not carry forward to our claims as they were promised on a different type of account and different circumstances.

Of course, I find this twisted logic by Chase very interesting.  It does elicit a number of points that merit cross-examination.  Let’s start with a review of the testimony, the dates, the time-line, and the context.

In his capacity as Chase’s Chief Marketing Officer, Carter Franke provided testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs on January 25, 2007.  In that testimony, a discussion about “opt outs” was used to illustrate the means by which Chase worked with account holders and treated customers fairly.  With respect to context, preceding the remarks about opt outs, Franke stated:

“We appreciate our customers, and we believe our success is based on maintaining a good relationship with every one of them.”

I note that the word-choice “every” does not distinguish differences in account types.  Obviously, one of the aforementioned “2 changes” is that Chase has determined that it is not interested in maintaining a “good relationship” with 400,000 account holders who were meeting their obligations.  Rather, it has chosen to alienate those customers not only by virtue of changing “fixed APR Until the balance is paid in full” loan terms, it also decided to defame those customers through disseminating a negative portrayal of affected account holders in the media.

Franke also stated:

“Our objective is to establish long-term relationships with students so they will continue to do business with us all their lives.”

I mention this because as I have explained elsewhere, with some obvious exceptions such as my mortgage and a vehicle loan, my personal credit obligations are primarily associated with my decision to go to graduate school, so as to become academically qualified to teach.  I wanted to serve and help others.

As I gradually claw my way out of debt as a result of pursuing what I considered to be a long-term and worthy objective (as compared to “shopping” or some other frivolous behavior), I would observe that Chase has failed miserably in meeting its stated objective relative to maintaining a life-long relationship with me, speaking as a former student.  As an entrepreneurship professor, now, I am responsible for interweaving a message of ethical behavior in all of my courses (the Chase behavior certainly makes for a great “textbook case study“).  Further, you can “bet your sweet bippy!” that I also warn students about the dangers of using credit cards both as consumers, and as a source of capital for small businesses.

Franke also stated:

The importance of customer relationships is a key driver of many of our business decisions. For example, a missed payment on a non-Chase card does not result in an automatic re-pricing of any Chase account.

Obviously, this is another one of the “2 changes” mentioned in Cathy’s comment, above.  Clearly, customer relationships are no longer a “key driver” in Chase’s business decisions (if it ever was in the first place, recalling that well before the date of the testimony, a Chase supervisor expressed no interest whatsoever in maintaining a relationship with my wife, after Chase took an adverse action against her “for no reason”).  I also have not seen any evidence that Chase isn’t re-pricing cards based on any excuse it can conjure up (and further, according to some posts I have seen on the Internet, it is apparently pulling other “stunts” such as manipulating billing statement due dates so as to “help” people miss a payment).

Now, as for the “opt out” passage, Franke stated:

“We deal with them [customers] fairly and responsibly….we provide that customer with an “opt out” option.  This means that the customer may reject any change in terms, close their account, and pay off the balance under their existing terms.  We believe the vast majority of our customers feel they are being treated fairly.”

On March 7, 2007, Richard Srednicki (the former CEO of Chase Card Services until he was replaced by Gordon Smith), delivered very similar testimony before the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.  About 10 months passed in 2007, and 11 months passed in 2008 before Chase imposed its change in terms to the contrary.

Hence, the life expectancy of Chase executives’ assurances appears to be under two years.  Regular readers of the ChangeInTerms.com site will also recall that coincidentally, Chase “desired” to be paid back in about two years (something it never bothered to tell customers when it was promoting its “life of the balance” loans).

In light of the new ”spin” in the Chase Executive Office’s position as noted in Cathy’s comment (also demonstrating that Chase has no moral compass), the statement that “We deal with them fairly and responsibly” reflects yet another change.  Accordingly, new testimony, if it was delivered honestly (apparently not among the list of needed leadership competencies to be a Chase executive), would state:

We previously claimed to deal with customers (but we meant only some account types) fairly and responsibly when we sat with a straight-faced and lied before Congress, but a key driver in our business decisions is now short-term profits for our executive perks and bonuses.  We also want to raise capital for buying the distressed assets of other banks (like Wa Mu) by accepting bail out money and squeezing customers.

That old “fairness” thing?  It’s really been discarded as a useless anchor holding us back at Chase — totally outdated.  No more opt outs.  We bully the customers and give them no choice in the matter whatsoever.  Everyone knows the life of our testimony is about the same as our “life of the balance loans” — until we change our minds and change the terms.

Would you like to know what else has also changed?  Carter Franke’s testimony also stated:

This is an extremely competitive industry, and customers have many attractive credit card offers to choose from.

Have you noticed that the industry is for all intents and purposes no longer competitive?  Rather, it is run more like a cartel (humm, gas prices in my area: $1.99, $1.99, $1.98; balance transfer fee: 3% no maximum, 3% no maximum, 4% no maximum — new for B of A)?

No, you really don’t have an “opt out” choice with Chase — “fairness” is dead.  And, you are really going to be pushed around, trapped like a surrounded victim in a circle of muggers.  Lacking any other “attractive credit card offers to choose from,” recently, you can now count on being assaulted by group of lying executives and their lobbyists who control an unfettered credit card industry where the “largest 12 issuers…control more than 88 percent of all outstanding credit card debt in America.”

© Dr Robert Lahm for ChangeinTerms.com, 2009. | Permalink | 15 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: "Bail Out", banks, change in terms, consumers, credit, credit cards, debt, economy, interest, small business, Testimony

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh