Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
I'm not going to go through the entire thing, but the simplest example was how shocked and aghast he was about the bill he showed being passed, as though it was somehow hugely problematic to define the purchaser of a debt as a "creditor". They are a ####ing creditor. The legal definition of creditor includes them. The audience is mostly ignorant, so all he has to do is put on a shocked, panicked expression and a large chunk of them will think "this must be the worst thing in the world!"
But maybe the most egregious bit was comparing debt collection from an estate as tantamount to operating a bestiality side-business at a petting zoo. People die with debt. They owe the money. All of those debts need to be paid first - they're at the front of the line. The creditor can't just ####ing say "aw, I feel terrible the person died, I guess I'll just write this off". Can you imagine what interest rates would be like if you didn't have departments of debt collection agencies or agencies themselves getting their money out of peoples' estates? No lender would take on that risk. And it's not like an estate is going to automatically make sure that creditor interests are protected; an executor is often under huge pressure from a number of sources other than creditors. Creditors can't trust that everything's just going to go fine, that's insane.
Basically the entire undertone of the thing is that buying debt is somehow an inherently slimy thing to do. There's an awful lot of deficient debt in the US, but the vast majority of it is not because of sob stories like the one he put at the front to pull at everyone's heartstrings, about the $80k hospital bill (which is the result of problems with the US health care system, not the concept of debt itself). And the bit about how debt buying companies will sue debtors and assume they won't show up to court and they'll get a default judgment... show up to ####ing court, you morons! You're being sued! Don't just ignore it! This is not rocket science!
Not worth any more time, but suffice it to say, that was a bunch of bull####, and it makes me wonder what other reports of his I've watched where he's misled me about topics on which I'm wholly ignorant and can't see through said bull#### (as opposed to being barely informed enough to tell I'm being bs'd, as I am here).
|
Your response reads like someone who only watched two short clips from within that segment and didn't understand those particular clips within the larger context of the segment.
Of course his show uses arguments in the strongest way possible to show how debt buyers are scum. And if he presents 10 reasons, and 1 or 2 miss the mark, who cares? It doesn't make the other 8 or 9 irrelevant or somehow false. Nor should it affect his credibility in any way. Moreover, if those 1 or 2 arguments that are weaker are taken in the larger context then it should be easy to see how they fit into his overall argument.
Your counter arguments themselves are even weak. Honestly your only answer to that entire segment about the court judgements and garnishing of wages and thousands of cases reviewed in seconds is "well the system is flawed but go along with it?"