0 votes

I have $XX,XXX amount of debt and I really need some good advice

Dear DailyPaulers,

I know here is the best place to ask a question like this so here it goes. My business went under several months ago and I really don't have a great history of managing my finances either.

I currently owe $15,916 between three different credit cards. I am already past due on them ranging from 120 - 160 days.

I owe $1,495 between electric, phone, overdrawn checking accounts.

I am looking at the possibility of debt consolidation so I can make a minimum payment each month, hopefully under $100.00 each month at least until March 2010. I will be leaving for India near the end of November and returning at the beginning of March. I really need to come up with a solution as soon as possible at least until I get back in March.

If you have advice about anything or about debt consolidation companies that you would recommend, I would greatly appreciate any advice whatsoever. I don't know if debt consolidators can help pay bills like electric as part of the plan but if you know of one that does that would be good.

I am open to alternative solutions as well besides debt consolidation. Thank you.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

you bet



Right now you owe multiple parties, who may or may not come after you depending on their needs. If it isn't cost effective, they won't even bother.

If however, you consolidate, you will only owe one party, and by raising the $ amount owed to one party, you might make it worth it to come after you. I don't know what kind of consolidation you are talking about, but if you were thinking of something secured, that would make it even worse. You would be taking unsecured debt, and moving to secured... meaning your asset is even more at risk.

In an ideal world, you should pay back money you borrowed. However, I would bet that your credit card companies broke about a gazillion parts of your contract, and the law, and they like to use the credit bureaus to beat you over the head.

Before you even think about paying anything, make sure you learn about privacy and protecting your assets. Also know, that if you get sued, certain things are exempt from being taken from you. For example, in Nevada:

* 75% of your disposable earnings or 50 times the minimum wage (currently $362.50 per week) which ever is higher.
* Payments received as disability, illness or unemployment benefits
* Workers Compensation (SIIS) benefits
* Welfare benefits, public assistance benefits from the Nevada State Welfare Division (TANF, Food Stamps, etc.) or local government (like General Assistance)
* Veterans benefits
* Social Security and Supplementary Security Income
* Social Security disability payments
* Amounts paid pursuant to a court order for child support or maintenance of a former spouse.
* Vocational rehabilitation benefits
* Certain federal and state retirement monies
* Certain Individual Retirement Accounts
* Life insurance proceeds, if your annual premium is less than $15,000
* One vehicle, if your equity (the market value minus how much you owe) is under $15,000, unless the lawsuit concerned the loan on the vehicle.
* A "homesteaded" house or mobile home, even if you do not own the land. The exemption protects up to $550,000 of the home's value. It can protect up to 100% if the judgment is for a medical bill or you establish "allodial title" (see Homestead section on this WebSite). The homestead exemption does not apply if the judgment was for the mortgage or a mechanic's lien upon the property.
* Necessary household goods, personal effects, and yard equipment, (maximum $12,000).
* Professional Libraries, equipment, supplies, and the tools, inventory, and materials to carry on your trade or business for the support of yourself or your family (maximum $10,000); Private libraries, works of art, musical instruments and jewelry which belong to you or your dependent (maximum of $5,000).
* Compensation for personal injury up to $16,150 (excluding pain and suffering or actual pecuinary loss) to you or your dependents.
* Certain compensation for the wrongful death of a person upon whom you were dependent to the extent reasonably necessary to support you and your dependents.
* Compensation for the loss of your future earnings or the future earnings of a person upon whom you were dependent to the extent reasonably necessary to support you and your dependents.
* Restitution payments to you for a criminal act.
* A security deposit on your primary residence.
* Personal property, not to exceed $1,000 in total value, if the property is not otherwise expempt.
* A tax refund received from the earned income credit provided by federal law or a similar state law.
* Note: This is not a complete list of exemptions. Consult an attorney to determine if you have any other exemptions.

Bottom line: If they are not willing to clean up your credit report as part of a pay back plan, then FUCK THEM!

ONLY ever get a tax refund,

ONLY ever get a tax refund, or use ANY government benefit, if you wish to pay income tax. There are LAWS ON THE books that clearly state "he who receives the benefit, bears the burden"

You can NOT expect to get federal benefits and NOT pay for it somehow.

besides, lending credit is NOT allowed, so all of your cards are VOID!

I just asked a friend the same question

She recommended that I read "The Total Money Makeover" by Dave Ramsey. This has been recommended to me by a couple of other people as well. My copy just arrived in the mail. I hope to use this in developing my own "Debt Snowball" plan.

Ron Paul is my President.

Ron Paul is my President.


California Civil Code Section 3522

One who grants a thing is presumed to grant also whatever is essential to its use. ... (would this apply to debt and relief as well? )

California Civil Code Section 3528

The law respects form less than substance.

The Liberty a society retains is inversely proportional to the number of Lawyers in the Government.

The Liberty a society retains is inversely proportional to the number of Lawyers in the Government.

if you read all of them,

if you read all of them, they get even more interesting...."He who takes the benefit must bear the burden."

O.K....lets set aside

O.K....lets set aside Strawman theories, lets set aside moral obligations, and simply concentrate on the law. Since we are a nation of LAW and not a nation of Opinion, F-B's opinion isnt much use in this discussion...(Im only singling F-B out because we have a history of love hate relationship:):))

The fact is, Credit is illegal!! And the courts agree.

"A national bank has no power to lend its credit." (Farmers & Miners Bank vs. Bluefield National Bank, 11 F2d 83, 271 US 669)

"Banking Associations from the very nature of their business are prohibited from lending credit." (St. Louis Savings Bank vs. Parmalee 95 U. S. 557)

"National Banks may lend their money but not their credit." (Norton Grocery vs. Peoples National Bank, 144 S.E. 501, 151 Va. 195)

"Neither, as to include in its powers not incidental to them, is it a part of a bank's business to lend its credit. If a bank could lend its credit as well as its money, it might, if it received compensation and was not careful to put its name only to solid paper, make a great deal more than any lawful interest on its money would amount to. If not careful, the power would be the mother of panics . . . Indeed, lending credit is the exact opposite of lending money, which is the real business of banking, for while the latter creates a liability in favor of the bank, the former gives rise to a liability of the bank to another." (American Express Co. vs. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 429)

"A bank can lend its money but not its credit." (First National Bank of Tallapoosa vs. Monroe, 135 Ga 614, 69 SE 1123, 32 LRA)

"It is not within the statutory powers for a national bank, even though solvent, to lend its credit . . ." (First Intermediate Credit Bank vs. Herisson, 33 F 2nd 841)

"A national bank, under federal law being limited in its powers and capacity, cannot lend its credit." (Howard & Foster Co. vs. Citizens National Bank of Union, 133 SC 202, 130 SE 758)

"Banking corporations cannot lend credit." (First National Bank of Amarillo vs. Slaton Independent School District, Tex Civ App 1933, 58 SW 2d 870)

"There is no doubt but what the law is that a national bank cannot lend its credit or become an accommodation endorser." (National Bank of Commerce vs. Atkinson, 55 Fed Rep 465)

"Nowhere is the express authority granted to the corporation to lend its credit." (Gardilner Trust vs. Augusta Trust, 134 Me 191; 291 US 245)

"A national bank has no authority to lend its credit." (Johnston vs. Charlottesville National Bank, C.C. Va. 1879, Fed Cas. 7425)

"A contract made by a corporation beyond the scope of its power corporate powers is unlawful and void." (McCormick vs. Market National Bank, 165 U.S. 538)

"A national bank . . . cannot lend its credit to another by becoming surety, endorser, or guarantor for him, such an act is ultra vires . . ." (Merchants' Bank vs. Baird, 160 F 642)

So you may not like the idea of what seems like someone getting something for nothing, but if a party to a contract breaks the law, then the burden falls on them to prove the debt.

F-B, Why will a credit card company REFUSE to send a signed "invoice" for the amount due?
Because, if they did, it would be fraud because no money is actually owed. NOW, if they lent money, WHICH NONE DO (in case someone wants to make the argument that some do lend money) Then, they would be able to respond to the requests of the conditional acceptance.

I think it is odd to have such deep concern for moral obligations with the most corrupt industry in the world.

c'mon, there must be some

c'mon, there must be some retort for "a national bank cannot lend credit"

Retort: They do.

I can buy real stuff with it. They can attempt to get paid. Strawmen have no pockets.

at least this is a

at least this is a response...and true, They do...but that doesnt make it legal. And because they do, illegally, it can be challenged at anytime.

Its like if I go door to door and sell people a "wish", and someone pays by check...well after a few days their wish doesnt come true so they cancel the check,
I can send them all the statements I want requesting the money, but the FACT is, they owe me nothing, because I gave them nothing. Its called consideration in contract law, and it MUST be present for a contract to be valid!

credit is just a wish, that is often granted

wolfe's picture

Your posts...

Have become their own worst critics.

I don't need to say anything anymore because they scream silliness without anyone pointing it out...

So if you are interested in attention... You will have to find a new subject.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

Nice retort...I think your

Nice retort...I think your advice down below was:
... "Now, what to do with any of that extra money that you have now? Give it back to the people that it belongs to, your creditors. Starting with the highest interest rate first."
Now THATS silly!!

So even with the courts saying creditors cant lend credit, you STILL think you owe them something? If your car gets stolen, will you owe the thieves the second set of keys? I mean after all they do go with the car.

IF Company "A" is forbidden from lending credit, and it lends it anyways (knowing good and well that they are not allowed...but realizes that only .02% of people will call them on it) to an unknowing consumer, you're telling me the creditor still deserves to get paid...something he never lent?

Maybe you still dont understand that credit isnt money, and the ONLY reason you got 'real stuff' with it, is because the stores are in on the scam, by being a member of their credit service...there are stores that dont take credit card, so it's NOT mandatory...its a program that stores can elect to join for the benefit of quick transactions. The bank has ZERO money to lend, instead YOUR credit score CREATES the account.

wolfe's picture

Because I am feeling generous...

The whole quote of your first item is:

“In the federal courts, it is well established that a national bank has not power to lend its credit to another by becoming surety, indorser, or guarantor for him.”

Which means something very different than what you imply. That is of course ignoring the fact that the only reference I could find was on sites promoting your stuff and so very well may be made out of whole cloth.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

You will notice that my last

You will notice that my last item is exactly that, because that is correct, the credit card company becomes the Guarantor for the card holder...

So am I to presume that you think a bank CAN lend credit? Do you think these are fake caselaw?

Whats your position?

Im not trying to argue with your moral belief, Im simply pointing out some VERY uncommon FACTUAL information, which is that lending credit is NOT allowed.
These banking corporations have done the math to determine how many people will know this, how many will question it, etc and have decided that it is well worth there very rare 'loss' to reap the benefits of dealing with people who refuse to learn the laws....They have cunning lawyers to inform them that they CANT send invoices, otherwise it's mail fraud...and many other secrets of banking.

all of the talk about how

all of the talk about how paying back credit cards is a moral duty...and no response to this case law proving that lending credit is illegal??

NOW, dont go getting mad and trying to find a retort...simply read this case law, read the banking code, THEN let your opinion determine your debate...I am only bringing this info to light, because I want ALL of my brothers and sisters who never realized they were duped, to be vigilant like the code says:
The law helps the vigilant, before those who sleep on their


dont forget to respond to

dont forget to respond to the case law

If lending credit is illegal, why is it tolerated?

I'm tired of arguing about this.

I'm sure we have common ground somewhere.

True of False:

1. It is morally good to purposely get stuff using credit cards, but not pay them back...cuz lending credit is illegal.

2. It is morally good to purposely get a college degree using student loans and then go default on those loans...cuz those loans were illegal.

3. It is morally good to purposely get a car/house using a loan and then not pay the loan off (but keep the car/house)...cuz those loans were illegal.

4. It is generally morally good to do unto others before they do unto you.

Personally I say false to all of the above. And you?

Also, If lending credit is illegal, why is it tolerated by the law?

Because lending credit is

Because lending credit is not necessarily a "crime" but it is just not allowed, therefore, if practiced, not enforceable.

Analogy time:
Lets say an engineer starts a consulting firm. And his license for this firm has a strict set of guidelines.
1) This firm may establish a storefront of no more than 5500 square feet
2) This firm may consult on Residential projects less than 7000 square feet
3) This firm may employ no more than 13 people at any time.
4) blah
5) blah

(lets assume nothing in these guidelines allow for consulting on "Commercial" properties.)

Well lets say the residential business slows way down...so the engineer puts a misleading sign up that has pictures of commercial buildings, sky rises, stores etc, he doesnt put "commercial consulting" just commercial buildings to 'trick' the customers into thinking he is a commercial consultant.
If someone comes into this firm and asks this engineer about one of his commercial projects...the engineer spends 20 hours that week consulting this guy on his commercial business...then the engineer sends a bill for $5,000 for his commercial consulting, it wouldn't necessarily be illegal, but it also wouldnt be within the scope of his business.
NOW...if no one ever makes a claim, it would continue for years, or ever...and because this engineer has a great lawyer, he makes sure to send a "statement" only, because a signed "invoice" would be fraud. The statement is used to 'urge' the client to pay in full, but because the engineer cant legally charge him for commercial consulting, he has to use this 'trick' to collect payment.
If the client pays without question, there is no conflict...but what if the client gets the statement, and requests an invoice be sent?
Or better yet, what if the client learns of this engineers trick and sends a conditional acceptance that says:

I will pay the 5000 upon your proof of claim that:
1) Your firm is allowed to consult on commercial projects,
2) You gave full disclosure of your limitations of consulting,
3) You presented a properly executed invoice for the requested amount.
You have 30 days to respond on point to this conditional acceptance, you refusal to respond will be deemed a dishonor, and that you acted beyond the scope of your firm, and that no amount is owed, and shall result in the estoppal of any further attempts to collect on tis alleged debt.

A conditional acceptance is ONLY asking the collector to establish the required grounds for his collection. NOW, if the engineer had not acted outside of the scope of his business in an attempt to create more business, he would be able to provide all of the info requested, and the debt would be owed.

oh and keep in mind, this is

oh and keep in mind, this is about 1/1000th as sinister as the banks...imagine if this engineer was making 650 billion dollars a year on this scam...and that all the politicians were ex engineers, or cronies of the engineering lobby,...and that a rule was made that engineers could leverage their money up to 9 times....and that engineers didnt have to pay any corporate tax.....and engineering firms that get in financial trouble will be bailed out by the American people....and that all the foreign governments were engineering firms, and that engineering firms made the laws regarding their activity, etc!

I agree 1,2,3,4 FALSE! It

I agree
1,2,3,4 FALSE! It is morally terrible to lack personal responsibility as you have mentioned. But is there a limit to moral responsibility?

If you inadvertently agree to give away your kid (for whatever reason, small print, trickery, obfuscation) do you have to apply moral obligation to your decision and give your kid up? No, of course not. NOW, I know this is a stretch of an analogy, but I merely wanted to point out that there is a limit, and that limit may be different for you than it is for me.

For me, as soon as I learn that ANY corruption was involved in the contract process, my moral obligation stops, UNTIL such time that the issue has been cleared. For example, NO ONE, gets a loan from a bank, or credit company, knowing that it is illegal. The LAW is here to help....read this ACTUAL law in California Code:
"The law helps the vigilant, before those who sleep on their


This means that the more vigilant you are, the more law you read, the more rights you keep...and this is according to the law makers themselves. Quit Sleeping, and falling back on moral obligations. I agree "if you owe it, pay it", but the question here is do you owe any debt, if it was created outside the law, and especially if it tricked you, lied to you, omitted key information, and made a fortune behind your back?

even the mainstream news

even the mainstream news sort of admits that the note is required...they imply the "note" was lost or destroyed, instead of that the note was bundled up and sold to someone else, but still they must produce the "genuine note"


I love this thread

We have the rational explanations: pay your debts, negotiate with your creditors and pay what you can while still surviving, cut costs and get control over your finances.

We also have the blame someone else crowd: "they jack up your rate 50% so it is your right to not pay." If you agreed to the terms, I don't care if it is fine print, read it and accept the terms or don't. If in your terms it says they can change the rate and give you 30 days notice, well be ready for them to change the rate, and be ready to pay off your debt in 30 days at any point in time.

Some people want get out of debt by pretending to understand the law by linking unrelated case law together and expect people, creditors and courts to take them seriously.

Then there is the fallacy crowd claiming "there is no credit or money in the world and you are just a strawman" nonsense, which has never, ever, ever, ever been accepted in a court for getting out of personal debt, ever. These people will not survive very long, soon they will realize that getting jobs, credit, places to rent, even something as petty as movies at blockbuster will become impossible to obtain. Nobody trusts these people, because they don't pay their debts. They are happy stealing and using the justification of "You aren't really in debt, your strawman is" BS, this is deadbeatery. Adults pay their bills, if they cannot, they try and figure it out and work on making things right.

Before you waste time with the UCC nonsense, it does not apply to you.

Here are some websites that explain why you are not a strawman

My favorite is titled, "Idiot legal arguments"

This one is about tax protestors and the strawpeople

Remember, these websites will be attacked because they are operated by secret government agents trying to hide the truth. Also, the only real place to get information is from the strawpeople websites, where they don't have any lawyers, but they understand the law. And they have a lot of success, like no % of the time are they ever taken seriously.

Not that I agree or disagree but...

A posting off of the ADL website, please bro.They were the ones referenced in the MIAC report right.
Bunch of stand up guys over there at the ADL.
Me thinks you protest this subject too much to not have an angle.
I can understand warning someone "hey this stuff won't work or you're gonna get yourself in trouble doing it" but you relentlessly post topic after topic on these issues it just leaves me wondering...and to use the ADL c'mon..

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees...

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees...

My angle

is against patriot youthanasia (strawman nonsense). If they are going to fill the thread with nonsense legal arguments, I will add my 2 cents.

ADL might suck, but they show how the court rules. The IRS might suck, but they have the law / guns on their side.

Stay Smart


...STRAWMAN will not stand up in court. Issues with the STRAWMAN are not dealt with court. It's Law Merchant, UCC--it's above admiralty courts. It's all commerce, and this is dealt with through third-party notaries and certified mail. You get your judgement from their inability to respond to your points. If they don't respond, then by law, you get a default judgement that then becomes law against them. I personally know of 1 or 2 individuals who have successfully used ACCEPTED FOR VALUE RETURNED FOR VALUE to discharge debts. Thing is, you really need to know what you're doing, or you'll get into trouble.

Go ask your credit card company or anybody else trying to get money out of you for a signed invoice. See if they'll do that. They won't. Because it's fraudulent for them to demand money from a bankrupt individual, and since the UNITED STATES corporation is bankrupt, and your STRAWMAN is signed up for that corporation via your BC and SS#, you became a surety to that debt. This means that you're in debt to the foreigners that lent us the money, which means that until you secure your STRAWMAN through the UCC-1 process or completely release and terminate both your BC and SS#, then they own you. YOU are collateral for the debt, because you are the economy...you produce labor and in turn, produce credit. Back to the invoice, nobody wants to accept the liability via their signature for that fraud...*serious* repercussions.

I have a question...

I'm kinda in the same situation as this guy-just not as extreme I'm only talking credit cards.I have three-2 Chase and one Capitol one.Low balances 3500 combined.I've made my payments on time and around May they bumped all my rates from 9.9% to 25.9%.No late payments and always on time.I've called and spoke with all companies and they refuse to budge as economical concerns were the reason.
I don't have the money to just pay off the cards and yes I do take personal responsibilty seriously.I have NO problem making my car or mortgage payment.
I trully do feel they broke their contract with me by raising my rates and expecting me to pay this outrageous interest.
I am current on my payments to them BUT I'm thinking of ditching them for just that reason-raising my interest rates.
Is that a breach of contract or am I just wrong?

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees...

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees...

you need to look at the fine print

If you don't have it, like all of us, you can ask for another copy.

I am willing to bet they reserve the right to raise your rate due to losses and economic indicators. You see, the reason they are jacking up your rate (mine as well) is because people are defaulting on their debt obligations. The credit card company most likely has what is called a loss reserve. If you have a card at 10%, 2% of that goes into the loss reserve, which usually covers the average borrower default.

Now, lets say the usual number of defaults is .05% of credit card holders, and now it has skyrocketed up to 10%, they are now in the red. They will adjust your loss reserve to cover the 10% which have already defaulted, and also readjust the new calculation for average defaults, bringing your rate even higher.

They will also take proactive measure to protect their portfolios by cutting credit lines to limit their losses. There is nothing wrong with a company protecting itself.

So to answer your question, you are most likely wrong for thinking they are in breach of contract. Is what they do ethical? Possibly not, it depends on who you ask, but who is these days? You could make a counterpoint saying they have given millions of people a service they desired, and the purchasing power to improve their lives.

30% interest

is the only way banks / credit frauds can make any money with the inflation rate these days. Rules: They make em, they break em. In some states you the consumer - credit holder and party of the "contract" can also change the terms of the contract. If you walk away there is not much they can or will do because they can't and it's not worth it to them. Bad credit score? Who cares! I shredded all my plastic cards and will never go back.

The reason F_B is fighting for life here is... well...he's a lender. Bless his heart - buy him a beer and he'll buy you a whiskey. But see he only lends to people who can prove they don't really need a loan in the first place. Personally I can't see how he makes any money esp with all the hours logged on here fighting the strawman and sticking up for the banksters.


Business is dead, I should probably ammend my comments and say I was a lender, who still has credit lines and could possibly get a deal done for you if you were, say Bill Gates, but I still need your financials.

Thanks for the reply

And I didn't know you were a lender-it kinda explains your attitude towards Julius though.
Thanks again.

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees...

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees...