defaulting on credit card debt

Foxx

The Living Force
Hi everyone!

I could really use some direction with regards to STO vs STS behavior and credit card debt. On the individual level, I've recently decided that despite credit card companies being thieves (having no risk in issuing debt and doing it as part of the fractional reserve monetary ponzi scheme), it remains a service to self (theft) action to use a card and accrue debt and then default on it. However, prior to this change of opinion, I was thinking on a macro level as a method of civil disobedience against the corrupt system--that were enough people (likely only a minority) to take out unsecured credit card debt and then default on it, possibly doing it legally as credit card companies are not able to provide the original signed contract (akin to the banks' fraudclosure practices), that this would be an effective means of taking back wealth, while at the same time breaking their ponzi scheme, from the banks who are stealing everything they can.

As I've been working with my credit card company as of late and making an agreement with them (verbally) that they seem to not be upholding, I'm beginning to wonder if my recent decision to pay it off (giving them the benefit of additional financial energy from the interest on my debt) is either not the STO decision, whether both are STS, or really what anyone else who thinks about these issues thinks.

Essentially, my original thinking (while trying to formulate ideas for effective methods of global change) was if enough people (again, probably a small minority) were to take out credit card debt to buy silver, they could create a cascading effect of financial readjustment--but as it seems no one else is doing this, I began to question my original thinking. It seems now likely to me that the closest STO action would be to not use credit cards at all.

Furthermore, if the company does not hold up it's verbal agreements or fee waivers, is that still a debt to repay or does it constitute something else?

Thanks for all the help!
 
As an update, they seem to be upholding their end of the agreement, so I think I have my answer.

Other input is always welcome, though.
 
Foxx said:
As I've been working with my credit card company as of late and making an agreement with them (verbally) that they seem to not be upholding, I'm beginning to wonder if my recent decision to pay it off (giving them the benefit of additional financial energy from the interest on my debt) is either not the STO decision, whether both are STS, or really what anyone else who thinks about these issues thinks.

I think it really depends on your specific situation. Your idea that it is giving energy to the STS position is an interesting one, but things are changing so fast in the legal sphere, you need to know whether or not they can harm you and your loved ones if you take a stand against them.

Foxx said:
Essentially, my original thinking (while trying to formulate ideas for effective methods of global change) was if enough people (again, probably a small minority) were to take out credit card debt to buy silver, they could create a cascading effect of financial readjustment--but as it seems no one else is doing this, I began to question my original thinking. It seems now likely to me that the closest STO action would be to not use credit cards at all.

Well, another interesting idea; but, as you say, one that would have to be undertaken by many people at once and there aren't enough awake people to do that so the few who do wouldn't make that big a difference.

And again, things are changing in ways that make it impossible to survive without some connection to the banking system.

In the end, it comes down to "render unto Caesar..."
 
Two thoughts:
- theft is theft, no matter how you rationalize it. It doesn't matter if you steal from a poor man or a rich man, you are taking that which you don't deserve. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

- you enter into a contract, an obligation, when you make purchases with your credit card. You therefore have a responsibility to live up to that obligation.

If karma exists, I'm sure there would be a cost to such actions and possibly a stain upon one's soul.

However, I'm not so sure it would make sense to worry about such obligations of comets start falling or the banking system fails.

My $0.02 (cash), FWIW,
Gonzo
 
Gonzo said:
Two thoughts:
- theft is theft, no matter how you rationalize it. It doesn't matter if you steal from a poor man or a rich man, you are taking that which you don't deserve. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

I don't think I'd be going around making hard and fast rules here. Remember "Les Miserables"...

Gonzo said:
- you enter into a contract, an obligation, when you make purchases with your credit card. You therefore have a responsibility to live up to that obligation.

Getting authoritarian, are we?

Gonzo said:
If karma exists, I'm sure there would be a cost to such actions and possibly a stain upon one's soul.

Oh, lord! The karma and soul card! Puh-leeeeze!

Best be reading "Meetings With Remarkable Men".
 
As I've been working with my credit card company as of late and making an agreement with them (verbally) that they seem to not be upholding, I'm beginning to wonder if my recent decision to pay it off (giving them the benefit of additional financial energy from the interest on my debt) is either not the STO decision, whether both are STS, or really what anyone else who thinks about these issues thinks.

I worked in the collection industry for a few years, and one of the strategies I learned working there is this: pay off the credit cards and don't use them unless you HAVE TO. Plan your budget for what you can actually afford, and if you have to be rude to a salesman to keep him from convincing you to buy something that will put you into debt, be RUDE.

Another bit of advice, and you need to research and read fine print on all contracts and 'service agreements' is this: make sure you are not going to be penalized for paying more than the minimum on a credit card, mortgage, etc. (I'm throwing in mortgage because that is a common practice of predatory lenders.) If ANY credit card or loan or financial what-have-you focuses on the 'minimum payment' on any product or service, what they are doing is forcing you into a contract with high fees and interest to keep you as a cash cow for up to 30 years.

No, I am not kidding.

One of the water treatment companies I collected for sold a water treatment system for about 2 thousand USD. After looking into it, I discovered that this system was no better than one anyone could pick up at a local Hardware store for 200USD. Because the contract encouraged no more than minimum payments, the collection agency tacked on enough fees to make payment of up to 100 USD a month possible for almost 20 years. They could get away with it because no one read the fine print. No one knew it was possible to get a loan or pool tax money and pay off the entire debt and get away from the company I worked for....and this company encouraged us not tell anyone. In fact, they purposely told us NOT to tell the people we called anything, just keep them paying the minimum.

That is the trap a lot of credit card companies encourage, and one collection agencies and 'debt reduction' plans make the most money off of.

Work with your credit card company, and get everything in writing if you can. Economize. Be creative and save change, anything to get rid of that debt, and not incur more. That's how Hubby and I keep things afloat. It doesn't always work, but its what can manage.

Bottom line? Work with them when you can, but do NOT buy into any hype or high pressure tactics. Read the fine print, and understand that while the person you talk to on the phone may have a conscience that won't let them cheat you, there is no hard and fast rule this is true. Having contact and learning who you're dealing with is important. Take names, and if you are lucky enough to get a decent person, insist on dealing with that person.

Just my 0.2 cents. :flowers:
 
Authoritarian, Laura, really? Perhaps rigid in my initial thinking, where I could have said, it depends on the context and what the object of theft is to be used for. Perhaps naïve, but I can't see how thinking one living up to their responsibilities is authoritarian. Would this not fit into Gurdjieff's notion of the Tramp?

Incidentally, there was an interesting discussion on the Questions on the Ethics of Stealing and Survival.(http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=15283.0) that might be of interest.

Gonzo
 
Gonzo said:
Two thoughts:
- theft is theft, no matter how you rationalize it. It doesn't matter if you steal from a poor man or a rich man, you are taking that which you don't deserve. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

- you enter into a contract, an obligation, when you make purchases with your credit card. You therefore have a responsibility to live up to that obligation.

If karma exists, I'm sure there would be a cost to such actions and possibly a stain upon one's soul.

However, I'm not so sure it would make sense to worry about such obligations of comets start falling or the banking system fails.

My $0.02 (cash), FWIW,
Gonzo

What about the Heinz dilemna ?

Have-you had a chance to read it and to think about it ?

Have a look at that post and follow the links.
 
Gonzo, you seem fenced in by morality. The morality of paying that which cannot be paid, especially in regard to contractual relationship with corporations or government, is the dark magician's fence around the sheep. The relationship between human beings is based on conscience, not morality. Morality pretends to be conscience to deceive the flock.

Banking corporations, which issue credit cards, have been granted the legal rights of person-hood in the USA. Clearly a corporation or government is an entity without conscience. Therefore, these soulless artificial life forms operate in the world at extreme advantage to normal human beings. Default on debt or bankruptcy is a practical and legitimate way to rid one's self of a contract with these virtual psychopaths protected by legal monopoly on coercion and the deception of morality and propaganda.

Edit: That being said; we must remember to feed the crocodile, lest it devour us, as Mouravieff so clearly says in Gnosis.
 
- theft is theft, no matter how you rationalize it.

1. There is noting illegal about default. Default is not theft!

2. A Corporation is not human, however if you give it human characteristics, I suppose it is possible to empathize with it and pledge your oath / honor / morality to it! Actually, because we do, is why the system digests us and controls us so well - FOXX has a good point in regards to the fact that default is actually a very valid way to descent against the system and free ourselves from some of its artificially imposed morality.

Every act of decent adds up... Make contracts with people you trust and respect and keep your word and honor - always go with your gut... If something your doing feels wrong then it probably is !
 
General rule of thumb about contracts, agreements, promises, etc: if you discover that there was/is manipulation involved in any agreement you have made (that is, the other party has manipulated you or lied to you, or used some psychological ploy to get you to agree), then that discovery, no matter how late it comes, reveals a breach of contract and you are justified in refusing to honor it.

Let me quote something I wrote a few years ago about the Cathar religion:

One of the more serious charges against the Cathars was their repugnance against swearing oaths. It's hard to understand this now, but it can be compared to the idea that a modern earthly contract has no binding power when issues of morality and ethics come into the picture. The swearing of oaths, especially oaths of fealty, was the contractual underpinning of a feudal society. It gave a "sacred weight" to the controllers of the hierarchy, the Catholic Church. If an individual broke an oath, he could be condemned by the authority of the Church to Hell. Kingdoms, estates, bonds of service, all were created, transferred, and maintained by the mediation of the Church. You could say that "swearing oaths" was medieval Corporatism.

The Cathars believed that linking the activities of business and government to the Divine was an exercise in Wishful Thinking if not out and out blasphemy. From their point of view, god was detached from such things and any idea that he was either interested, or cared about the business and government doings of human beings was a fanciful house of cards. For anyone to claim that they had the power to control human dealings by threatening the wrath of God just on their say-so was hubris in the extreme.
 
Here is a simplest and most plain breakdowns of the rule of law I have been able to find.

Its a little preachy in some parts, however once the concept of Rule of Law is understood - legal / moral issues can be assessed more plainly and with more clarity... The article also points out how far the current "legal system" has gone in the wrong direction !

The "Rule of Law"

The precise legal definition of the "rule of law" seems to have been "misplaced" by our "guardians of civilization" and lost in history. Current Judges state: "I am the law", implying that they are the beginning and end of authority, residing in their eminently trustworthy and infallible persons. Enough information is now available to re-construct the "rule of law" from the evidence.

Judges make the claim that they do what they do under authority of the "rule of law". This means that judges admit that the "rule of law" actually exists and further admit they will not tell us what it is, by my lengthy and colossal failure to find a written and legally binding definition of the "rule of law" anywhere.

Judges further claim that their role is to serve as "guardians of civilization", under the "rule of law" which means the law must have some measurable purpose and effect besides fattening the bank accounts of legal "professionals".

The "rule of law", by its very words implies that it is intended to replace or at least control the power of rulers and all of the problems associated with arbitrary rulers and the conflict of competition for the position of "ruler". It also implies that it is not a mere replacement of rulers by another ruler class called "Judge", since this is just a name change and solves no problems. If it means that the law is supreme and Judges are mere interpreters, this is just a shifting of arbitrary rule to those who make the laws. Even if the lawmakers are elected representatives of the people, this still does not solve the problem of the majority enslaving the productive, oppressing minorities and collapsing civilization. Therefore, the "rule of law" cannot be a mere shifting of power to any one group, including the majority, since this solves none of mankind´s organizational problems. The "rule of law" must be something different.

Given the fact that those who wield force under color of law are by definition numerically inferior (but better armed with weapons we have provided to them) to those who must tolerate their actions, the "rule of law", to be useful must have some advantage able to achieve voluntary consent from a broad base of individuals who would otherwise organize to overthrow it like any other oppressive ruler throughout history.

To guard civilization, we must know what civilization actually is. We must know what is required for civilization to function. We must know what civilization should be guarded from. We need to know how success in protecting civilization can be measured.

Civilization is about the way mankind is organized. Since the organization of man is about individuals and groups interacting, we must consider the goals and motivations of the components in order to consider their organization. This is because there is no force in the universe able to enslave man by imposing an organization contrary to free choice. The definition of organization is: "the set of capabilities and boundaries of the parts and the rules governing relationships between the parts".

The greatest threat to civilization is from the competition of individuals and groups trying to achieve dominance over other individuals and groups. This results in total conflict and the collapse of social organization, placing collective survival at risk. Thus, the purpose of the "rule of law" is to reduce conflict. We must understand what creates conflict in order to reduce it. The absence of conflict is peace and cooperation. Therefore civilization and the "rule of law" is about the rules by which we live in peace and cooperate with each other by the minimization of conflict.

The "rule of law" cannot leave any particular group in charge, since this group would ultimately enslave all others, as proven by historical experience. Since control of the law cannot be entrusted to some, it must be entrusted to all. Therefore, the "rule of law" must be a simple philosophical statement of what is justice and not justice easily understood and agreed to by all men. This allows all to see that the law is fair and ensure that justice is done, to guard against injustice. If all have fairness and justice, no honest man will desire conflict. The "rule of law" must also be the glue that ties all of mankind together in common interest, for mutual survival. Since this is the purpose of the "rule of law", it must also be a moral statement that mankind´s overall survival is more important than some natural rights of inherently free men. Given that man´s second highest goal is freedom, the "rule of law" must limit freedom as little as possible, sufficient only to reduce conflict. If this were not the case, conflict would occur in pursuit of freedom.

The defining characteristic of any individual or group is the need to survive. To do so, goals must be achieved. In the seeking of any goal, there are only three possibilities. You can steal by force or fraud or you can trade value for value. There are no other possibilities. Since conflict is a consequence of forceful and fraudulent methods of goal seeking, these methods must be suppressed by law. These methods create conflict because they interfere with the survival of the victims, causing a defensive response. The only peaceful means of goal seeking is thus by mutually agreed trade.

To encourage mutually agreed trade, it must be un-coerced and people must be able to keep the fruits of their labors, or why bother. Trade reduces conflict further by virtue of the parties becoming interdependent and thus having an interest in mutual survival. Peaceful trade requires the law to treat all equally and property rights must be absolute.

The above conflict minimization and goal-seeking considerations results in a precise definition of the "rule of law":


* "the suppression of forceful and fraudulent methods of goal seeking"
* "all are treated equally by the law". This means ALL, including king and judges
* "absolute property rights"

Note that I use equality in the mathematical sense "in all dimensions". The meaning of the key words have been obscured by an assault on language, to destroy the precision required for truth.

The above "rule of law" is what governments, judges and the legal profession have been hiding from us for centuries, while they and their cronies feed off of the conflict and human misery created by their illegal acts and divisive political philosophies. Mankind has long had this knowledge to create a better world for all and it is suppressed, for the profit of some. This suppression of truth is the greatest crime against humanity ever committed. It is an unthinkably evil crime. The unbelievable degree of evil and malice against mankind of this crime is the greatest defense of the perpetrators. These groups hypocritically claim to be acting in mankind´s interest. Unchecked, these crimes will drive mankind to extinction by war, civilizations or ecological collapse. Do not expect the legal profession to judge itself guilty in this or any other matter.

The "rule of law" is the highest law of mankind. All other laws are subservient and cannot contradict the "rule of law". All laws contradicting this including constitutional are an offense to mankind´s collective survival and must be fought and destroyed. This most basic of laws is the highest intellectual achievement of mankind, the result of objective consideration of mankind´s goals, nature, environment, history and survival by the greatest and most objective minds mankind has yet produced. The "rule of law" is a profound truth which allows the most dangerous predator on the planet to live together in peace and harmony, co-operating for mutual self-interest and progress.

The above definition of the "rule of law" is fully consistent with what governments, judges and the legal profession pretend to be guided (but not bound) by. The fact that government and judges do not consider themselves bound by the "rule of law" allows them to remain in control, creating plausible "necessity", "complexity" or "technicalities" of why they and their cronies are special and above the law, free to suck the life out of their fellow men. This allows them to keep all of us fighting each other by refusing true equality and tricking us into blaming and killing each other. They make us slaves to their will by denying our property rights and threatening seizure. This allows them to promise our productivity to others who refuse to choose personal responsibility or accept the consequences of this decision, buying political support at our expense and placing incompetents in democratic control. The chaos of usurped democracy provides confusion and cover while our civilization is looted and destroyed, for the benefit of the unscrupulous.

For their grand finale they are steering civilization to a worldwide conflagration of war that can never, ever end until the human race is extinct. This is for the simple reason that we have been duped into thinking our survival depends on someone else´s exploitation. Our victims have responded by becoming what some call terrorist and I call freedom fighter. When justice is denied, conflict is the only survival option.

The absence of the "rule of law" also prevents serious international cooperation in the critical areas of pollution, global warming, renewable energy, economics and poverty. The most crucial foundation of civilization has been stolen and removed. As a consequence, civilization is toppling.

The "rule of law" is simple and unambiguous, making justice a simple matter with no special exemptions for anyone. Simply put, if any individual or group acts in a manner that creates conflict, then they are guilty and offend all of mankind. Any issue can easily be resolved by process of elimination. If it is not an honest, mutually agreed trade, then it is theft or fraud by definition. Since all are subject to this law, governments must also earn their keep and deal with each other and us in a non-conflictual manner. They will not do this willingly.

There is not a single problem of humanity that is not in some way related to the current and historical suppression of the "rule of law". The fact that the powers that be claim it as a pretext and the sophisticated methods by which they create and profit from conflict is sufficient proof that they understand the behavioral principles involved and their peril if the "rule of law" ever returns.

Under the "rule of law" honest men are in charge, with a simple and precise definition of what they should be doing. Democracy will be prevented from discriminating on any basis, ending divide and conquer politics, forcing voters to consider common interest rather than advantage over others.

The "rule of law" is brilliantly simple, just and well suited to all of mankind. The fact that western democracies once had prosperity, honesty, social unity and a work ethic argues that we once had the "rule of law" to which all honest men agreed, to the detriment of criminals. The fact that these values are under concerted attack by "Social Engineers", creating conflict by pitting viewpoint against viewpoint is proof enough of who is responsible and that they know exactly what they are doing.

The entire legal profession is profoundly wrong and an enemy of mankind.
 
go2 said:
Gonzo, you seem fenced in by morality. The morality of paying that which cannot be paid, especially in regard to contractual relationship with corporations or government, is the dark magician's fence around the sheep. The relationship between human beings is based on conscience, not morality. Morality pretends to be conscience to deceive the flock.

Banking corporations, which issue credit cards, have been granted the legal rights of person-hood in the USA. Clearly a corporation or government is an entity without conscience. Therefore, these soulless artificial life forms operate in the world at extreme advantage to normal human beings. Default on debt or bankruptcy is a practical and legitimate way to rid one's self of a contract with these virtual psychopaths protected by legal monopoly on coercion and the deception of morality and propaganda.

Edit: That being said; we must remember to feed the crocodile, lest it devour us, as Mouravieff so clearly says in Gnosis.
I would have to agree with this, and add that my thought would be, Perhaps the only thing owed karmically, would be to pay what back what you initially received. Not neccessarily what they say you owe. I hope that makes sense.
The one thing i have been worried about, is a student loan i took out for 20 grand. I know that i will never be able to pay it off, let alone before things get bad, and they "own" me in this respect. Am i being paranoid about this?
Once again, i hope i worded this right, if not i will clarify when i am thinking a little more clearly.
 
davey72 said:
go2 said:
Gonzo, you seem fenced in by morality. The morality of paying that which cannot be paid, especially in regard to contractual relationship with corporations or government, is the dark magician's fence around the sheep. The relationship between human beings is based on conscience, not morality. Morality pretends to be conscience to deceive the flock.

Banking corporations, which issue credit cards, have been granted the legal rights of person-hood in the USA. Clearly a corporation or government is an entity without conscience. Therefore, these soulless artificial life forms operate in the world at extreme advantage to normal human beings. Default on debt or bankruptcy is a practical and legitimate way to rid one's self of a contract with these virtual psychopaths protected by legal monopoly on coercion and the deception of morality and propaganda.

Edit: That being said; we must remember to feed the crocodile, lest it devour us, as Mouravieff so clearly says in Gnosis.
I would have to agree with this, and add that my thought would be, Perhaps the only thing owed karmically, would be to pay what back what you initially received. Not neccessarily what they say you owe. I hope that makes sense.

The one thing i have been worried about, is a student loan i took out for 20 grand. I know that i will never be able to pay it off, let alone before things get bad, and they "own" me in this respect. Am i being paranoid about this?
Once again, i hope i worded this right, if not i will clarify when i am thinking a little more clearly.

I hear you! I wouldn't say that you being worried about this is paranoia, Davey72. However, there are ways to default and protect yourself. That may be worth looking into on the internet. Maybe others can add what they know about it.

One way I know about is to form an LLC and make yourself an independent contractor with a company name (any name that you like!) Then the student loan psycho debt collectors will not see your name associated with the account at your bank. The IRS supposedly will only see the company name or tax ID# as well. This you could do in association with a job if you can have the checks made out to the LLC name (and deposit your paychecks in this LLC account.) In addition, keep your personal bank account balance very low.

I am not sure this will work for you, as I don't know your situation. But as long as you have money to put into the business account, you can form an LLC as a creative project if you like. It costs $50. to do this online.

Or just make minimum payments as long as you are able, if this is already what you do, and it doesn't bother you to do this-- but I agree with you, they own you 'forever' in their book, even after the euro and/or dollar crashes and a new currency is introduced (or already has been.) Who knows, but it could be a worse debt when this happens.
Maybe this blog will help your frame of mind a bit. (And, there's plenty more to say about this issue on the internet, just by googling 'the student loan debt industry' for starters! :evil:

http://studentloansblog.nextstudent.com/2011/10/25/student-loan-debt-is-a-1-trillion-dollar-opportunity-for-debt-collectors/
 
As i have come to surmise, credit card debt is on a parallel line with the mortgage crises. Both are intended to induce destabilization to the U.S. economic portrait, as well as render the U.S. currency worthless, if people continue to default on both mortgage's, and card debate.

There seems to have been again, a coordinated, and calculated linked to the current unemployment situation scratching an all time low for the unemployed in the United States as well as globally.

People will be forced to choice between paying bills, (IE. any debt) or to maintaining what ever effort they can to keep a roof above there head. Rationalize which looses out, and one would see that debt will be set aside (raising interest rates) before sanctuary, and sustenance are abandoned.

There seems to be a motive of the psychopath's in controlling of the monetary system through this agenda to help bring about a new financial NWO. A mortgage loan (the give away) could have be had to anyone that could have filled out an application. You would have been given a loan to purchase a home, it was almost that easy.

But the banksters started that process by wetting the appetite of the money hungry public for loaned money by giving out unsolicited credit card applications by mail in the late 90's. So easy it was to obtain a credit card (by mail) that one could have filled out an app. with there favorite pets name on the form, and a card would have been delivered hot, and ready to be used with out any folllow up to verify information, rather if were true or not.

Card debt is pyramid scheme that enriches the banks, and harness the general population in monetary enslavement, to those that are unfortunate to become involved in the revolving door of high interest rates. These interest rates climb as the card user continues defult on the debt do to the point that a card user is unable to pay down the principal as the interest is this first to be deducted out of each payment, each month. It really begins to spiral when card reaches any where near five, to six, thousand dollars in debt, then its look out, Trouble. It is predatory lending.

Creditcards.com
8 things you must know about credit card debt
Want credit, but not the debt? Here's how
http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/help/8-things-to-know-about-credit-card-debt-6000.php

6. Can't make a payment? Ask for help. While your credit card company is under no obligation to accept less than the minimum requested payment, do not fear. "Try to work with your credit card company to work out payment agreements," urges Lita Epstein, author of "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Improving Your Credit Score." "If that's unsuccessful, work with a credit counselor from the National Foundation for Credit Counseling to come up with a repayment plan," she says.

7. Settle cautiously. Want to settle your credit card debt for less than the actual balance? It's possible, but you need to offer a lump sum, and most creditors require borrowers be at least a few months behind. Arranging such a deal on your own is best, as companies that facilitate it often charge a substantial fee and some aren't very reputable. Still, settlements should only be attempted after less radical steps to eliminate debt fail, as they can result in substantial credit damage and tax problems. "Forgiven debt is often reported as taxable income," says Perlmutter, "and unless it resulted from a bankruptcy or your debts were greater than your assets when you made the settlement, you will have to pay tax on it."

8. You can't go to jail for nonpayment, but... If you're worried about spending time behind bars for not paying your credit card debt, know that there is no debtor's prison in the United States. However, there are other legal repercussions of which you should be aware. A creditor can sue you in a court of law, and if they win a judgment, they may be able to garnish your wages or take nonexempt property and assets. Living debt free is within every cardholder's capability. The key is to always be aware of charging and balances, and address credit problems immediately.

Hate your Credit Card Bills?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiOVNWoWTAU
 
Back
Top Bottom