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

Legandivori asked:


Ex wife is poor and cannot get him to pay for needed operations: both children need immediate surgery. Both life threatenening conditions. How to force him to pay, how to charge him with extreme child abuse. Conn. laws seem to favor rich in courts. She has already had reduction in her alimony payments due to his influence in court and lawyer’s arguments. She left and divorced him because he had become religiouly abusive over the years, following world wide trends. He lives in a mansion, she a small apartment. He is a foreigner, she American. He is sheltering his money all over the place by paying cash and receiving cash..
Ideas on how to get him into jail and assets seized so that children get necessary medical attention, and to help move ex wife out of debt and poverty while getting hik jailed?

They have joint custody, but she can harly pay her rent. THis action against his kids is in retaliation for her having divrced him some years back.

Sirena Celenza

icanpfreely asked:


Due to lost of 60% of my family income we have no choice other then put our home in for a short sale or forecloser. We also had about $80,000 in credit cards debt which about two payments behind. I also had a rental property worth about $100,000 and owed about $49,000. the property was bought when I was single to help out a family member and they make all of the payment. If we are going to file for bankruptcy I am sure they would loose their home and that would be the last thing I would want to do. I know my family life is screwed up but don’t want that family member lost their home because of me. What could I do so they can keep that home? thanks
I forgot to mention We live in California.

Emily Krzyston

owaowa asked:


Hello,

I have a huge problem with my ex and our house that we share. To sum up the story, we were never married just engaged when we bought the house in 2006. We broke up 1.5 year ago and I moved out since he wanted to stay and make payments. We had a huge fight when we broke up. He tried to have me sign the deed of our house over to him and still keep my name on the mortgage. In addition to closing and taking our savings that we had. This was all after, I agreed to take half of his credit card debt (all in his name) since it was our debt technicaly and I felt quilty of him just paying back for it. This was all before the deed scenario.

We sort of had a falling out and things just remianded where he stayed there and was making payments. Now, he started to email me again regarding the house, I received 20 emails in about a week from him. I’m just scared that he will take advantage of me, he is foreclosure/real estate attorney and I’m having a hard time believing him especially after the break up. He’s deceived me so many times in the 6 years we were together in every way possible.

He is telling me the new options that are available and that we could finally resloved this situation. Here is a snap shot of the email that I got from him

“1. Prevent damage to either of our credits.
2. Ideally, get rid of the house either via short sale, deed in lieu (which
means give the house directly back to the bank), or principle reduction and
then sell. I don’t need a 3bd house at $2k/mo. This depends on what the
bank will agree to. It’s not in my control, but I will pursue and argue for
this as much as possible.
3. If getting rid of the house is not possible and we are stuck with it for
now, then I would at least like to reduce the payment via an interest rate
deduction.”

This was all after he told me how he was doing very well with his law firm in the inital email and that his accounting (he’s a cpa as well) contact expired and he can be considered unemployed giving us a golden ticket out of this mess. I just don’t know what to think, he wants me to send my documents to our mortgage bank so they can look at the options. I told him I would do this monday after he kept emailing me non stop. Do you guys this I need to get a lawyer and if so what kind rela estate/family. I’m so scarred of him and I don’t know what to do nor do I have any $ to do anything. I work and go to school and I’cant afford any extra attorney expenses. Can someone please give me any sort of advise, I have no family/friends to turn to. I’m scarred for my life and I don’t want to have anxiety attacks like I used to.

To emails that he sent were vague and he initially wanted to do a modification option but now he is saying he’s ok financially but wants the option #1 in the email. He is always vague and always has a alternative motive with everything. To make things weirder, he emails this to me after he breaks of with his gf (who’s company is moving into my office bulding, on the same floor on monday). He sent me an email the next day after they break off. I also know some people at his gf compnay since my ex used to work there (he got her a job there) and I’m freaking out even more.

I don’t know what to do. I feel so scarred and I was on medication for a year due to our break up and the aftermath that occured. All of ‘our friends’ stopped talking to me since I met them through him (incuding the one’s that are moving in next door), At one point I even tried to kill myself by overdosing on my medication. I thought I was ok since I’ve been seing a therapist but him emailing me has brought everything back.

Sorry for the long question. Any advise would be appreciated. Thanks

I also tried to call the free government number they have available, but they don’t seem helfpul.

Janeth Deir

L asked:


the plan is to save 40 billion dollars each year to pay off the debt.
assuming that we do not borrow any more money at all, it will take 300 years to pay off the debt.

Adolfo Finders

LOA asked:


Please read and let me know how you would analyze this article:The Water Crisis: Analysis and Proposals

By Celine Tan

Water and sanitation is the first of five priority action areas under the
WEHAB plan for the post-WSSD implementation of sustainable development.
The challenge of providing safe and clean water and sanitary conditions for
an increasing world population, in the face of rising inequities, is
phenomenal.

Forty percent of the world’s population, in 80 countries, currently suffer
from serious water shortages. A billion people worldwide lack access to
safe drinking water and 2.4 billion people lack access to adequate
sanitation (Global Economic Outlook 2002).

Yet, the biggest threat to universal access to clean water and adequate
sanitation is not mother nature but corporate globalisation. Privatisation
of water is aggressively exported to the developing world under the rubric
of poverty reduction and debt relief strategies, free trade and economic
development. By turning a scarce resource into an economic commodity, the
world’s economic leaders and policy planners claim that existing water
resources can be managed and consumed efficiently in accordance with
competitive market principles. These claims are not only misguided, they
are deceitful. There are two myths being projected: first, that placing a
price on water will encourage conservation and wise water consumption.
Secondly, that market competition will lead to more consumer choice and
better services. In reality, the water sector is monopolistic when placed
in the hands of the market. It is thus alarming that the commodification of
water resources is now heralded as the answer to the world’s water woes.

Monopoly and subsidies for corporations

Water is a US$400 billion global business, controlled by a handful of
European transnational companies and consortiums, namely French
multinationals Vivendi and Suez Lyonnaise, SAUR and British water companies
Thames Water, Anglia Water and United Utilities. The global drive towards
privatisation of water services is thus pursued not by a collective of
democratically elected governments acting in the interest of the world’s
population, but by a cartel of corporations motivated by profit and market
conquest.

To make matters worse, these companies are subsidised by their governments
(and invariably their taxpayers) through support from domestic export
credit agencies, and by multilateral development banks, such as the World
Bank and the African Development Bank. They are also subsidised by
developing countries who raise credit from international financial
institutions to upgrade their water systems prior to private takeover. This
corporate subsidy comes at the expense of consumers, most of them in
developing countries, who are made to pay for what is a necessity of life.
For the poor this means no access to water.

Additional loans to facilitate the privatisation process are raised by
developing country governments from multilateral and bilateral sources.
Often, these loans are also used to finance the creation of an ‘enabling
environment’ for foreign water and wastewater investors. This includes the
drafting of local investor protection legislation to guard against
re-nationalisation of the water industry and to provide for hefty
compensation for any attempt to renege (for good reasons) against the
privatisation contracts.

In many cases, corporate access to a developing country’s water system is
paved by a loan or debt relief conditionality requiring the poor or
indebted country to privatise its water and sanitation services. For
example, the IMF insisted that Tanzania privatise its Dar es Salaam Water
and Sewerage Authority (DAWSA) as a condition of its debt relief package
under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative.

Fallacy of privatisation

Experience shows that the privatisation of water services cannot ensure
universal delivery of safe water and efficient sanitation. Privatisation
imposes additional financial obligations on governments. They may have to
bail out failed privatisation project, and also shoulder the costly legal
risks of rescinding a privatisation contract with a wealthy transnational,
even if the company’s performance is unsatisfactory. Argentina, Hungary and
Bolivia have found that the legal claims for compensation by private water
companies in Tucuman, Szeged and Cochabamba respectively, have made
terminating contracts prohibitively expensive.

The dominance of foreign water companies and the liberalised investment
climate – mostly facilitated by structural adjustment, and now under trade
agreements including those under the WTO Ð in developing countries will
also ensure that a large portion of profits from water privatisation will
not accrue to the countries themselves but are repatriated abroad instead.

The imposition of full-cost water pricing as a result of privatisation will
only deprive more and more people of access to clean and safe water by
forcing poor communities to seek alternative sources of water for
consumption, such as untreated well water and water from sewage-ridden
urban rivers.

Forced upon rich and poor, consumers and industrial producers, similar
rates for water use will also result in greater income disparity and deeper
social cleavages, leading to higher risks of civil unrest. In 2000, martial
law was declared in the Bolivian city of Cochabamba as a result of
city-wide riots precipitated by high water prices. A private consortium led
by International Water doubled the water prices to city residents. Water
bills went up by 35% and some, twice that. The World Bank supported
full-cost water pricing and prohibited any use of its structural adjustment
loans to subsidise water services for the poor.

Future fears and WSSD outcomes

There is no agreement on the text in the WSSD Draft Plan of Implementation
that commits governments to supporting the UN Millennium Development Goal
of halving, by 2015, the proportion of people unable to reach, or afford,
safe drinking water and access improved sanitation (paragraphs 7 and 7[alt]).

However, the most pressing concerns over universal coverage of water and
sanitation services are not expressed in these bracketed paragraphs.
Rather, they are reflected in the general lack of political will
demonstrated by developed countries to address the systemic issues leading
to a crisis of sustainable development in the south, and the alarming
emphasis placed on public-private partnership funding and implementation of
sustainable development programmes. The relinquishing of responsibility by
developed countries is marked by their reluctance to commit to specific
disbursements of ODA and by repeated references to voluntary partnerships
and initiatives as a means of financing WSSD programmatic outcomes.

In the absence of firm commitments by governments, Type II partnerships on
water and sanitation services will only increase private sector involvement
in this crucial area. The private sector is already identified as a key
implementer of the ‘Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) for All
Initiative’ involving 28 countries, six UN agencies, the World Bank, and
the Asian and African Development Banks.

Another major threat to universal access to water and sanitation is
liberalisation under the WTO’s rules. Although Member countries have the
right to liberalise at their own pace, and even choose not to open up a
sector under the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), there
is tremendous pressure especially on developing countries to liberalise.
Thus in the ongoing negotiations at the WTO, developed countries are
submitting extensive ÒrequestsÓ that seek access to every sector in the
developing world, including water services and sanitation.

If developing countries succumb, privatisation of water services initiated
under World Bank and IMF structural adjustment programmes could become
permanent under the binding rules of the WTO. Once a country is locked into
the GATS regime, the right of its government to regulate liberalized
service sectors will be diminished, paving the way for foreign
transnationals to enter the domestic market. Any attempt to reverse the
situation would be subject to WTO disciplines and penalties.

Any real effort to achieve the Millennium Development Goal must therefore
include commitments to review loan conditionalities that impose
privatisation and countries must not be pressured to offer water services
under GATS liberalisation. Essential services should be exempted from GATS.

Conclusion

Privatisation does not address the deeper economic and ecological issues of
water shortages. Questions of why there are water shortages in countries
not under water stress are not resolved by shifting responsibility of
service provision to private companies. Water management and water
distribution are also key factors in determining water supply and universal
coverage. Until and unless rich countries fulfil their commitment to
provide resources for developing countries to build solid, cost-effective
water delivery systems which support the needs of the world’s population
equitably and ecologically, the water woes of the world will not go away.

At the same time, all governments need to recognise and support the
diversity and replication of community water management systems and
practices. These have proven in many countries to be the most sustainable
approach to rural water management for rural populations. The WSSD process
and the last 10 years of the work of the CSD have called for good and best
practices in sustainable development. However, where water resources are
concerned the trend and emphasis are privatisation which has proven
destructive.

Firm commitments must be made at the WSSD to reverse the trend of corporate
takeover in the water and sanitation sector, rather than to accelerate the
process of privatisation and corporate monopoly. Undermining the sovereign
power of governments to regulate supply of water in their countries and
passing the bucket onto private transnationals to steward the world’s water
resources would probably be a most anti-development and anti-ecological step.

Shannon Gennett

jimmylehew asked:


The Myth that Child Support Enforcement ‘Collects $4.10 for Every Federal Dollar Spent’
One of the popular myths employed to justify huge, wasteful expenditures for child support enforcement (and to justify child support enforcement abuses) is the myth that “Child Support Enforcement ‘Collects $4.10 for Every Federal Dollar Spent.’

The stat apparently comes from the Congressional Budget Office, and has been repeated ad infinitum, including in the news story Child-support services in peril (Denver Post, 4/6/07). As usual, the child support collection industry is whining that the feds don’t lavish them with enough money to waste.

In my co-authored column Federal Child Support Enforcement Cuts Will Hurt Bureaucrats, not Children (Las Vegas Review-Journal and others, 12/17/05), I explained:

“According to the Congressional Budget Office, this will lead to $24 billion in child support going uncollected over the next 10 years. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department Director Philip Browning are warning that the cuts will mean a drastic reduction in the amount of child support collected. A bipartisan group of senators has penned a letter opposing the cuts, explaining that ‘in 2004, more than $4 was collected in support for every dollar invested in the program.’ All of these claims, however, are based on false assumptions and misleading data.

“It is true that federal figures show that over $20 billion in child support is collected nationwide yearly, and that only $5 billion is spent on enforcement. However, the vast majority of the funds collected are not done through enforcement tactics—they’re simply the payments already being made by law-abiding noncustodial parents. These payments will continue to be made regardless of the cuts. The myth that child support enforcement is a bargain was created by incorrectly counterposing total collections with expenditures on enforcement.

“In reality, much if not most child support enforcement funds are frittered away in misguided attempts to collect artificially inflated paper arrearages from low-income men who couldn’t possibly pay them. Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement data shows that two-thirds of those behind on child support nationwide earned less than $10,000 in the previous year; less than four percent of the overall national child support debt is owed by those earning $40,000 or more a year. According to the largest federally-funded study of divorced dads ever conducted, unemployment, not willful neglect, is the largest cause of failure to pay child support.

“The inflated arrearages are created in large part because the child support system is mulishly impervious to the economic realities working-class people face, such as layoffs, wage cuts, unemployment, and work-related injuries. According to the Urban Institute, less than one in 20 non-custodial parents who suffers a substantial drop in income is able to get courts to reduce his or her child support payments. In such cases, the amounts owed mount quickly, as do interest and penalties.

“For example, a recent Urban Institute study found that only 25% of California’s $14.4 billion child support arrearage will be collected over the next decade because the support amounts demanded of noncustodial parents are not realistic. The average arrears owed per debtor is $3,000 higher than the median annual earnings of employed child support debtors. Those in the poorest category have a child support debt amounting to their full net income for seven and a half years…

“It is true, as critics of the cuts say, that the amount of child support collected by child support enforcement programs has increased from $2.4 billion in 1977 (2004 dollars) to nearly $22 billion in 2004. However, most of this increase has nothing to do with enforcement. For one, there are far more children receiving child support now than there were in 1977, in part because of welfare reform, which has obligated the fathers of children on welfare to pay child support to the states. Also, the amount of child support demanded from noncustodial parents rose sharply during the 1980s and 1990s. In addition, whereas most child support used to be paid directly from the noncustodial parent to the custodial parent, today most child support goes through the state systems, creating the illusion of increased collections.

“For too long child support policies have been determined by politics instead of common sense; the mantra of ‘help women and children’ has allowed large-scale abuses and waste to go unchallenged. The proposed cuts won’t interfere with efforts to collect legitimate child support, but they will save taxpayers $15.8 billion over the next decade. They will also force some discipline and restraint onto an area of government which sorely needs it.”

Milford Brusco

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

Ashley H asked:


Thursday, March 26, 2009
Texas Attorney General Charges Debt Settlement Company With Unlawful Conduct
AUSTIN – Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott today charged Credit Solutions of America, Inc. (CSA) with conducting an unlawful scheme that defrauded Texans with financial problems. According to the state’s enforcement action, CSA purported to offer a debt settlement service that would eliminate its customers’ unsecured debts – such as credit card accounts – in as little as three years.

Despite CSA’s promises, a state investigation revealed that the defendant failed to negotiate settlements with creditors for most accounts entered into its program. Further, when CSA did negotiate settlements with creditors, its clients did not always receive the 60 percent reduction they were promised. The state’s enforcement action seeks an injunction against CSA that will prevent the defendant from continuing to unlawfully promise services which it does not deliver.
Media links
Attorney General’s lawsuit against Credit Solutions of America

According to the state’s enforcement action, CSA not only charged its customers for services that were not delivered, but because its debt settlement program requires customers to stop making payments to their creditors, many CSA customers could face unforeseen late fees, additional interest, increased collections attempts, and even lawsuits by their creditors.

The Office of the Attorney General has received 140 complaints against CSA in the past two years. Additionally, the Better Business Bureau, which gave CSA a “failing” rating, received over 1,600 complaints against the company in the past 36 months.

Debtors should carefully research a debt reduction firm before entering into a contract or signing any documents. Options available to struggling debtors include credit counseling, debt management, debt settlement or bankruptcy.

Texans who need additional information, believe they have been harmed by a debt-settlement company’s unlawful conduct or wish to file a complaint may contact the OAG at (800) 252-8011 or do so online at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov.

Shelly Brogden

Shaydie asked:


I just got this thing in the mail today saying in accordance with the Deficit Reduction Act of 2004, Public Law 109-171 and chapter 425 of the Nevada revised statutes, …they are taking $25 out of my child support if they help me collect at least $500 in a year? Some months I only get $45-80 dollars, so they want to take out $25? Is this true?
I’m on social security disability and barely make ends meet right now…
This isn’t through a private company, this is through the welfare’s child support enforcement program.

It says it waves the fee if you’re on welfare or ever have been, but I’m not so looks like I’ll have to pay it.

There should be a better way to pay of the federal deficit than to take money from single moms who don’t collect much for their kids to begin with.
YES the federal gov’t mandated it! Bush signed this (I am not one of those anti-Bush people, but that’s another subject.)
I’m suprised I didn’t hear about this before.

Ammie Carolla

BONHAMFLASHER asked:


HELLO AGAIN, THANKS FOR THE QUICK REPONSES AND WELCOME INFORMATION! I HAVE BEEN SUED, TOMORROW MORNING IN THE COURT DATE. I HAVE BEEN ILL AND HAVE NOT BE UP TO DEALING WITH FINDING MY OLD RECORDS ON THE DEBT. I BELIEVE 4 YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE LAST CONTACT. I HAVE A QUESTION OR TWO. THE PLAINTIFF(THE ATTORNEY) LISTS THE CREDITOR (BANK OF AMERICA) AS THE “PLAINTIFF’S CONSIGNER”. DOES THIS MEAN THE CREDITOR RETAINED THIS ATTORNEY TO RECOVER THE DEBT? AND IF SO, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? AND WHERE DOES ONE FIND FREE LAW FORMS FOR TEXAS COURTS THAT ARE ACTUALLY FREE? I WANT TO PETITION THE COURT FOR A TRIAL BY JURY AND/OR REDUCTION OF THE DEBT WHICH HAS TRIPLED FROM THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OWED. I ALSO WANT TO PETITION FOR DISCOVERY, THE ACTUAL DATE I LAST DEALT WITH THE CREDITOR. WHERE DO I FIND THE FORMS? DO I REALLY NEED FORMS? HELP, TIME IS SHORT. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE !

Dana Sklenar