Debt Reduction- Advice On Credit Card Debt Reduction, Debt Reduction Services, And Debt Reduction Plans

jociemom asked:


We live in PA and are currently enrolled in a debt reduction program which we enrolled in Sept 08. Our credit is trashed and we still have 3 years to go with the program or longer, which means that our credit will not get any better until the program is over since we aren’t paying our credit cards in the program. The fees for the program were pretty steep and on top of that, when the company negotiates our dept down, they take an additional 10% on top.
Since our credit is already trashed and the debt hasn’t really gone down, we are considering Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Is this a good move?

Dania Himmel

asked:


Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000–though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton’s record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury !
Provide links to back up your arguement!

Ted Kantis

Emcee asked:


Which president had/was responsible for…

1.The highest growth in the gross domestic product? Harry Truman, a democrat

2.The highest growth in jobs? Bill Clinton, a democrat

3.The biggest increase in personal disposable income after taxes? Lyndon Johnson, a democrat

4.The highest growth in industrial production? John Kennedy, a democrat.

5.The highest growth in hourly wages? Lyndon Johnson, you guessed it, a democrat

6.The lowest misery index (inflation plus unemployment)? Harry Truman, a democrat

7.The lowest inflation? Truman, a democrat

8.The largest reduction in the deficit? Bill Clinton, a democrat

• The Clinton administration presided over the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. When Clinton left office, there was a ten-year projected budget surplus of $1.6 trillion.
• In less than a year and a half, Republican George W. Bush wiped out that projected budget surplus, and within three years, he turned the $236 billion surplus he inherited into a $375 billion deficit.

Keep in mind that these figures are from George W. Bush’s first term. He has soared to new heights of fiscal irresponsibility during his second term and continues to set records in economic incompetence.

The national debt is now more than $10 trillion.

“[A]s much as Republicans would like to tag Barack Obama and Democrats as big spenders, it’s Republicans who have been America’s biggest spenders. It’s not even close…. [S]ince 1945, when Republicans have been in charge of both the White House and Congress, they have never, not once, reduced spending…. Reagan ran up a bigger debt than every president before him combined. The budget deficit exploded under his leadership and the national debt tripled…. [T]he debt has grown from under $1 trillion before Reagan to over $10 trillion after George Bush! And, yet, with all of this spending, we still don’t have national health insurance and Social Security is more endangered than ever.”– Bruce Tenenbaum, HuffingtonPost.com, 10/16/08.

Do you need a job, or maybe a second job, or a third job?

•”You work three jobs?… Uniquely American, isn’t it? I mean, that is fantastic that you’re doing that.”– George W. Bush, to a divorced mother of three, 2/4/05 .

If you really want to change America for the better, electing Barack Obama is not enough. We need to give the Democratic Party a filibuster-proof majority in Congress. Since the Democrats won a narrow majority in 2006, Republicans in the Senate have used procedural filibusters to block legislation which would have resulted in:

* withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.
* repeal of tax subsidies for oil companies that were making record profits.
* a “cap-and-trade” process to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, defray the cost of gasoline to consumers, and encourage green-energy alternatives.
* increased oversight and regulate speculative trading of energy futures that has driven up energy prices.
* allowing Medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to lower drug prices.
* adequate rest for military personnel between deployments to the war zones.
* making it easier for workers to form or join unions.
* relief for homeowners facing foreclosure and state and local governments burdened with foreclosed properties.

This is just a small sample of the kind of bills filibustered by Republican Senators since 2006. For a more complete listing (with bill numbers and vote totals) visit .

Why did Republican Senators filibuster these popular initiatives?

•”I think [Democrats' inability to pass legislation] will give the Republicans the one opening they are going to have in 2008. Everything is running against the Republicans, but I think they have a chance if they argue that the Democrats have been in charge and they are the do-nothing Congress.”– Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer, Fox News, 7/24/07.

To paraphrase a cranky, old presidential candidate, “The Republicans would rather sabotage Congress than lose an election.”

(thanks to Mick Youther, the Nightlife, and the cited references above)

Lance Freidhof

Bill and Carey S asked:


To all you people who think Ron Paul’s policies are too “extreme” to be used in the real world…

All he is advocating is a drastic reduction in the size and scope of the federal government… and to stop using our military to create animocity against America around the world.

Can someone out there tell me EXACTLY what policies of his you disagree with?

For example… some people think that a non-interventionist foreign policy is too niave.. that we have to send troops to all these different countries to “protect American interests”. What has that gotten us? Uncontrollable debt, and hatred towards Americans. Can someone explain to me how I am wrong? There are plenty of powerful countries on this planet that don’t go around using their military to get their way.

I’ve also heard that “he wants to dismantle our government and most of it’s agencies.” Can you tell me what agencies in our government do their job efficiently? Ones that we just cannot do without?
Michael U… I agree wholeheartedly.

Well, so far we have one answer, and it is weak at best. WWII and Iraq are different animals. We were attacked by the Japanese in WWII and they were allied with the Germans.

We were attacked on 9/11, but there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11… so why go there?
I figured I wouldn’t get much response to this. It’s hard to argue with someone who speaks so much truth.

Vesta Schenck

Emcee asked:


I hope this will help you.

1.The highest growth in the gross domestic product? Harry Truman, a democrat

2.The highest growth in jobs? Bill Clinton, a democrat

3.The biggest increase in personal disposable income after taxes? Lyndon Johnson, a democrat

4.The highest growth in industrial production? John Kennedy, a democrat.

5.The highest growth in hourly wages? Lyndon Johnson, you guessed it, a democrat

6.The lowest misery index (inflation plus unemployment)? Harry Truman, a democrat

7.The lowest inflation? Truman, a democrat

8.The largest reduction in the deficit? Bill Clinton, a democrat

• The Clinton administration presided over the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. When Clinton left office, there was a ten-year projected budget surplus of $1.6 trillion.
• In less than a year and a half, Republican George W. Bush wiped out that projected budget surplus, and within three years, he turned the $236 billion surplus he inherited into a $375 billion deficit.

Keep in mind that these figures are from George W. Bush’s first term. He has soared to new heights of fiscal irresponsibility during his second term and continues to set records in economic incompetence.

The national debt is now more than $10 trillion.

“[A]s much as Republicans would like to tag Barack Obama and Democrats as big spenders, it’s Republicans who have been America’s biggest spenders. It’s not even close…. [S]ince 1945, when Republicans have been in charge of both the White House and Congress, they have never, not once, reduced spending…. Reagan ran up a bigger debt than every president before him combined. The budget deficit exploded under his leadership and the national debt tripled…. [T]he debt has grown from under $1 trillion before Reagan to over $10 trillion after George Bush! And, yet, with all of this spending, we still don’t have national health insurance and Social Security is more endangered than ever.”– Bruce Tenenbaum, HuffingtonPost.com, 10/16/08.

Do you need a job, or maybe a second job, or a third job?
•”You work three jobs?… Uniquely American, isn’t it? I mean, that is fantastic that you’re doing that.”– George W. Bush, to a divorced mother of three, 2/4/05 .
Why did Republican Senators filibuster these popular initiatives?
•”I think [Democrats' inability to pass legislation] will give the Republicans the one opening they are going to have in 2008. Everything is running against the Republicans, but I think they have a chance if they argue that the Democrats have been in charge and they are the do-nothing Congress.”– Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer, Fox News, 7/24/07.
To paraphrase a cranky, old presidential candidate, “The Republicans would rather sabotage Congress than lose an election.”

(thanks to Mick Youther, the Nightlife, and cited sources above)

Amada Meling

Benedict A asked:


A. Now He was also saying to the disciples, ‘There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and this steward was reported to him as squandering his possessions.
Rich Man and Steward
B. And he called him and said to him, “What is this I hear about you?
Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be
steward.”Problem
B. and the steward said to himself, “What shall I do, since my master
is taking the stewardship away from me? I am not strong enough to
dig; I am ashamed to beg.Problem
C. I know what I shall do, so that when I am removed from the
stewardship, they will receive me into their homes.”Idea
B. And he summoned each one of his master’s debtors, and he began saying to the first, “How much more do you owe my master?” And he said, “A hundred measures of oil.” And he said to him, “Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.”Solution
B. Then he said to another, “And how much do you owe?” And he said, “A hundred measures of wheat.” He said to him, “Take your bill, and write eighty.”Solution
A. And his master praised the unrighteous steward because he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light.Rich Man and Steward

Many commentators agree that this parable is the most difficult of all the parables to interpret. In fact, it is interesting to note that there are other “unsavory” characters in Jesus’ parables: The unjust judge, the neighbor who does not want to be bothered in the night, and the man who pockets someone else’s treasure by buying his field.
Questions to ask:
1.Is the master assumed to be an honorable man, or is he a partner-in-crime with his steward?
2.Has the steward obliged the renters to sign bills for amounts greater than the actual debts?
3.Is his reduction of the debts merely a surrender of his dishonest cut?
4.Is the steward an estate manager dealing with land rentals or is he an authorized agent for a moneylender?

Mason Blais

Primerica Debate Team asked:


Here’s the situation: Imagine you have 8 credit card debts totaling $20k or more and you also have a mortgage. You are thinking about consolidating them all into one monthly bill. And this is what you want from the bank:
1) It has no application fees or any upfront fees to pay (such as appraisals on your home).
2) No PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance)
3) An equity builder plan with an interest rate reduction that will accelerate your debt payments and get you out of debt sooner.
4) No prepayment penalties
5) A no fee bi-weekly payment
6) It uses simple interest vs schedule interest
7) It has no escrow (so you would have to set up an account on your own and use it as if it was an escrow). Escrow is used to pay for property taxes. Unfortunately, with a mortgage company, they only pay it once a year. Most of us that own a home pay property taxes on a quarterly or semi-annual basis. It shows you an amortization schedule.
9) No obligation to accept the loan if you qualify.

Vincent Vitelli

DN asked:


A) increased tax revenues, reduced budget deficits and slowed the growth of the public debt.
B) were unaccompanied by expenditure reductions and therefore increased the public debt.
C) was accompanied by equally deep cuts in Fedeeral spending, thus neither increased nor decreased the public debt.
D) contributed to rising budget deficits, but not to a rising public debt.

Dong Handwerk

TR_T-Rex asked:


I owe a great deal amount of debt to two banks in the U.S.– Citibank and AMEX. I am considering paying my debt to these banks and yesterday I called Citibank and asked them whether they can waive the finance charges and late payment fees. The rep. told me that he cannot do that but he can offer a settlement amount. After holding me on the line for a minute he offered a settlement amount which even greatly exceeds the sum of finance charges and late payment fees I had asked to be waived. After realizing that such settlement practice is quite common for Citibank, I asked whether he could further reduce the amount he had offered. He then offered me even a better amount as a final compromise. I then thanked to him and hung up the phone to deliberate and in the meantime consult to people over Yahoo! Answers.

So my questions to the people who paid their debt by reaching a settlement with a bank are:

1) Do you recommend that I insist on a further reduction? Do the banks in the U.S. (particularly Citibank and AMEX) compromise more?

2) What other suggestion you would give to me for a better settlement amount?

3) I live outside the U.S. and will never come back. Should I threaten them by saying that I will not pay a single more dime if they do not accept my offer, and non-payment will never be a problem for me as I will not come back.

I know I exaggerated a bit, But the less I pay, the better it will be for me.

Thanks!

Brain Breau

mrksbby2004 asked:


Lucent Technologies Questions? 500/750 words

Questions: 2. Evaluate the asset, debt, and equity structure of Lucent Technologies, as well as trends and changes found on the common-size balance sheet.

3. What concerns would investors and creditors have based on only this information?

4. What additional financial and nonfinancial information would investors and creditors need to make investing and lending decisions for Lucent Technologies?

Reading: Executive Summary We design and deliver the systems, software and services that drive next-generation communications networks. Backed by Bell Labs research and development, we use our strengths in mobility, optical, access, data and voice networking technologies, as well as services, to create new revenue-generating opportunities for our customers, while enabling them to quickly deploy and better manage their networks. Our customer base includes communications service providers, governments and enterprises worldwide. We have three segments organized around the products and services we sell. The reportable segments are Integrated Network Solutions (“INS”), Mobility Solutions (“Mobility”) and Lucent Worldwide Services (“Services”). INS provides a broad range of software and wireline equipment related to voice networking (primarily consisting of switching products, which we sometimes refer to as convergence solutions, and voice messaging products), data and network management (primarily consisting of access and related data networking equipment and operating support software) and optical networking. Mobility provides software and wireless equipment to support radio access and core networks. Services provides deployment, maintenance, professional and managed services in support of both our product offerings as well as multi-vendor networks. Beginning in fiscal 2001, the global telecommunications market deteriorated, resulting from a decrease in the competitive local exchange carrier market and a significant reduction in capital spending by established service providers.This trend intensified during fiscal 2002 and continued into fiscal 2003. Reasons for the market deterioration included general economic slowdown, network overcapacity, customer bankruptcies, network build-out delays and limited availability of capital. We believe that the market for telecommunications equipment has stabilized and is starting to grow in certain areas. The growing demands of enterprises and consumers for additional services tailored to their needs is creating the need for a new convergence of networks, technologies and applications. LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (in Millions, Except per Share Amounts) September 30, September 30, 2004 2003 Assets Cash and cash equivalents $ 3,379 $ 3,821 Marketable securities 858 686 Receivables 1,359 1,511 Inventories 822 632 Other current assets 1,813 1,213 Total current assets 8,231 7,863 Marketable securities 636 — Property, plant, and equipment, net 1,376 1,593 Prepaid pension costs 5,358 4,659 Goodwill and other acquired intangibles, net 434 188 Other assets 928 1,608 Total assets $ 16,963 $ 15,911 Liabilities Accounts payable $ 872 $ 1,072 Payroll and benefit-related liabilities 1,232 1,080 Debt maturing within one year 1 389 Other current liabilities 2,361 2,393 Total current liabilities 4,466 4,934 Postretirement and postemployment benefit liabilities 4,881 4,669 Pension liabilities 1,874 2,494 Long-term debt 4,837 4,439 Liability to subsidiary trust issuing preferred securities 1,152 1,152 Other liabilities 1,132 1,594 Total liabilities 18,342 19,282 Commitments and contingencies 8.00% redeemable convertible preferred stock — 868 Shareowners’ Deficit Preferred stock—par value $1.00 per share; authorized shares: 250; issued and outstanding: none — — Common stock—par value $.01 per share;Authorized shares: 10,000; 4,396 issued and 4,395 outstanding shares as of September 30, 2004,and 4,170 issued and 4,169 outstanding shares as of September 30, 2003 44 42 Additional paid-in capital 23,005 22,252 Accumulated deficit (20,793) (22,795) Accumulated other comprehensive loss (3,635) (3,738) Total shareowners’ deficit (1,379) (4,239) Total liabilities, redeemable convertible preferred stock and shareowners’ deficit $ 16,963 $ 15911

Gearldine Beanblossom