Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Credit card debt collection

bitsaboutmoney.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 568 posts

Re: Credit card debt collection

#491

Post by MerelyMortal »

pierat wrote: post #309
repiret wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A little over a decade ago I knew a young adult in the US that had a pretty rough life and I was trying to help her get back on her feet. When you’re homeless, it’s hard to get mail, and hard to keep your stuff; going from nothing to your standard documents is tricky. To get your birth certificate, you need to write a check to the state at some address where you’ll be able to receive mail in 2-4 weeks. Once you have…

I was kicked out of my parent's house. The really shit side: its impossible to change your drivers license (which is your "official address") to homeless. And if you get sued, they send your mail to that former address, regardless if you ever get it. And, well, I was sued. My parents destroyed my mail. And had a summary judgement against me on a case I didnt know exist, to an address I couldn't change cause I didnt h…

> fuck this country

Are there other countries that allow you to put "homeless" on your driver license?

Re: Credit card debt collection

#492

Post by leereeves »

__derek__ wrote: post #448
bequanna wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both political parties have endeavored to pack the courts with sympathetic judges. The conservatives got the Supreme Court majority by pure luck. The Democrats would have done the exact same if given the opportunity and then you’d have the Right crying about how the court is “invalid”. To change this, we should require some kind of supermajority to confirm judicial appointments at all levels.

> To change this, we should require some kind of supermajority to confirm judicial appointments at all levels. That was the de facto situation until 2013 (until 2017 for the Supreme Court).[1] The Republican SCOTUS majority became entrenched when Mitch McConnell refused to allow the Senate to consider Merrick Garland in early 2016, though. That wasn't luck. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#2013:_Clot…

No, it wasn't luck, it was a consequence of the 2014 election, in which the Republicans won net 9 Senate seats.

Re: Credit card debt collection

#493

Post by leereeves »

303uru wrote: post #393
hiatus wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like that might not be possible these days. > On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a plaintiff must suffer a concrete injury resulting from a defendant’s statutory violation to have Article III standing to pursue damages from that defendant in federal court. The Court also held that plaintiffs in a class action must prove that every class member has standing for each claim asserted…

Meanwhile, a "website designer" who's never deployed a website, was never hired to create one and who suffered zero injury gets a ruling. This SCOTUS is invalid.

> Meanwhile, a "website designer" who's never deployed a website, was never hired to create one and who suffered zero injury gets a ruling. This SCOTUS is invalid.

Where did you get the idea that she's never deployed a website? I've never heard anyone say that. (And at the very least, she has her own site, https://303creative.com/ )

Re: Credit card debt collection

#494

Post by me-vs-cat »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #414
giraffe_lady wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to make an argument make one. "Some people like it" isn't a strong one but if that's all you got I guess. "We're not going to" presupposed the outcome. I don't agree and won't contend it, since you're not willing to say anything that can be refuted. I'm not the author of the future I can't say what we're gonna. But then neither are you.

"Some people like it" isn't a strong one because it's a straw man of my argument. "The overwhelming majority bear tangible benefit from it" is the actual argument. Debt is a core instrument of modern first world society. Just think about how many people would own a car, much less a home, if you had to pay for it all up front.

While having a car today is necessary when living any place where a century of planning has assumed everyone who matters has a car, this state of affairs is not indisputably better than what might have happened otherwise.

Home mortgages are only a few hundred years old, and it's not like they started out as prevalent as they are today.

---

Just because we find ourselves in a particular place today doesn't mean other options aren't feasible. Assuming no better options could have ever existed sounds depressing.

Re: Credit card debt collection

#495

Post by pierat »

MerelyMortal wrote: post #491
pierat wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was kicked out of my parent's house. The really shit side: its impossible to change your drivers license (which is your "official address") to homeless. And if you get sued, they send your mail to that former address, regardless if you ever get it. And, well, I was sued. My parents destroyed my mail. And had a summary judgement against me on a case I didnt know exist, to an address I couldn't change cause I didnt h…

> fuck this country Are there other countries that allow you to put "homeless" on your driver license?

Does that actually matter?

I'm here, and it costs $3500 plus all my student debt to legally leave.

Re: Credit card debt collection

#496

Post by MerelyMortal »

pierat wrote: post #495
MerelyMortal wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fuck this country Are there other countries that allow you to put "homeless" on your driver license?

Does that actually matter? I'm here, and it costs $3500 plus all my student debt to legally leave.

Yes, otherwise it sounds like you're changing the subject.

No, it costs whatever the visas and transportation costs. I've never heard of anyone not being allowed to leave a country because of student debt.

Re: Credit card debt collection

#497

Post by flangola7 »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #454
flangola7 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but that's not their fault and they shouldn't be penalized for it.

How are they being penalized? Nothing was owed to them, so withholding something not theirs isn't a penalty. Why should the company assume higher risk merely to protect people it has no obligation to?

A de facto penalty is a penalty. I don't care how the corporations want to frame it.

Re: Credit card debt collection

#498

Post by clove »

flangola7 wrote: post #436
bequanna wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both political parties have endeavored to pack the courts with sympathetic judges. The conservatives got the Supreme Court majority by pure luck. The Democrats would have done the exact same if given the opportunity and then you’d have the Right crying about how the court is “invalid”. To change this, we should require some kind of supermajority to confirm judicial appointments at all levels.

[flagged]

Is this a common sentiment? I don't live in the US. Which side is seen as the moral side and why?

Re: Credit card debt collection

#499

Post by hn_version_0023 »

bequanna wrote: post #420
303uru wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, a "website designer" who's never deployed a website, was never hired to create one and who suffered zero injury gets a ruling. This SCOTUS is invalid.

Both political parties have endeavored to pack the courts with sympathetic judges. The conservatives got the Supreme Court majority by pure luck. The Democrats would have done the exact same if given the opportunity and then you’d have the Right crying about how the court is “invalid”. To change this, we should require some kind of supermajority to confirm judicial appointments at all levels.

I'm sorry, did you just compare Mitch McConnell block of Supreme Court appointments through Obama's terms to... luck?

That's about as disingenuous as it comes.

Re: Credit card debt collection

#500

Post by drekipus »

swat535 wrote: post #461
FractalHQ wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your morals are immoral, sure.

What's your definition of immoral? and by whose standard? Outside of a religious context, morality can be very much subjective.

> Outside of a religious context

Or, outside of your religious context, more precisely.

One religion could think it's moral to treat non-believers like cattle, or kill them, and other religions think it's immoral.

Morality is the most subjective "objective morality" there is

Post reply on HN