Credit Report Scrub

Donation Questions

2012-02-15T12:58:00.003-05:00

Okay, The Scrub has been asked about donations. Here is the scoop on the donation thing:

1. You do not have to donate in order to keep the site running

The Scrub hosts the site on Blogger, which is free.

The Scrub also runs the site as a hobby i.e. he enjoys doing this.

2. Why you should consider donating

The Scrub devotes a significant amount of time (usually an hour or two a day) to answering emailed questions and offering assistance to folks in trouble just like you. It is nice to get something for the effort.

The Scrub has helped people avoid making gigantic mistakes, and has helped people correct gigantic mistakes. That is why The Scrub uses the tagline "If The Scrub has bailed your ass out..." on the donation button...because saving someone from making a $12,000 mistake on a debt settlement plan is an "ass-bailing".

3. Why you should not donate

Because The Scrub understands that people in debt or facing financial ruination probably need the money.

As stated many times on the site, The Scrub is not doing this for money. The Scrub is an ideologue who hates large banks and how they are screwing over people. The Scrub is like those idiots who jump out of planes for the adrenaline rush, only with helping people win against big powerful asshole banks and debt collectors.

4. There is no minimum or maximum amount to donate

The range is from $5 to $50. The most common is $20. The vast majority of readers do not donate. It would be cool to have 500 readers donate $1 in a month, but The Scrub is aware of the realities of the economy and human nature.

However, The Scrub is still waiting for Donald Trump to drop a million into the tip jar.

5. The money donated is not used to finance terrorists or drug dealers

The money is actually used on less exciting things, like diapers and formula. The meth lab jokes are just that i.e. jokes.

6. The Scrub does not pressure people he has helped out via email to donate

Some do of their own choice, but most do not. The Scrub does not even mention the donation tab unless someone asks about it. It usually goes like this:

Hi Scrub!

My name is X. I have a problem.

(long email explaining the problem)

To which The Scrub replies with an answer.

Then the questioner will reply to the answer with anywhere from 2 to 8 followup emails, accompanied with apologies for asking so many questions.

Then The Scrub will answer each email to the best of his abilities.

Then the questioner will respond with something like:

Thank you so much for your help. Do you take donations?

***

That should answer all the obvious questions about donating. If you have any more questions, comment and The Scrub will answer.

How to Make Sure You Use the Right Credit Repair Letter

2012-02-08T10:50:00.003-05:00

Just a quick, hit and run post from The Scrub.

The Scrub provides you with free sample letters over here ----->

Each one of these letters is a tool for you to use, and just like tools, they have a fitness for a particular purpose. They are not interchangeable. You would not try to hammer a nail into a board with a monkey wrench.

You can alter the letters a bit to suit your particular needs (which The Scrub actually encourages you to do), but you need to make sure that you are using the correct type of letter for your situation. Otherwise, you could end up screwing yourself over.

But Scrub! How do I make sure that I am using the right letter?

Two ways.

First, read The Scrub's appropriately titled entry Which Credit Repair Letter Should I Send.

If that does not clear up the confusion, then go to the top of this page and email The Scrub. Your question will be answered in short order.

SOPA Protest

2012-01-18T18:28:00.003-05:00

The Scrub just got home from work and realized he forgot to talk about SOPA. So here:

PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.

The Scrub sez:

Politicians plan to fuck up the internet? How shocking!

How to Get a Job Off Craiglist, or How to Respond to a Job Ad on Craigslist

2012-01-14T06:52:00.003-05:00

First off, if you are looking for work online, then The Scrub will assume that you have exhausted your networkable personal and professional lists.

Next, The Scrub will assume that you have applied to company websites directly for jobs, bypassing the online job aggregation sites like Monster.com and Careerbuilder.com.

So now, here you sit, with no job and/or a terrible job. You have no idea what the hell to do, and you landed on this site looking for tips.

The Scrub has some tips, based on his experiences.

1. Your local Craigslist is the only job board worth a damn

This is because it, essentially, replaced your local newspaper's classified section. In other words, local companies will post jobs they are looking to fill right away.

2. Other job boards suck

Monster and Careerbuilder are spam havens. They are nationwide and posts stay up for a long time.

3. Never post your resume

HR professionals will scour those other job boards looking to increase the number of applicants for open positions. You will be contacted relentlessly for commission sales positions (i.e. no pay for mountains of work) and "churn and burn" employers looking for fresh meat. These businesses thrive on new talent bringing in their contact lists, then disposing of you once you are no longer useful. Once you leave, the hope is that some of your contacts you brought with you stay behind and the remaining senior employees cannibalize your efforts.

***

Now that we have that out of the way...here is how you find a job on Craigslist.

1. Spend a lot of time on there

If you have an active local job board, jobs can disappear/get filled in an hour.

Seriously, that is all you need to do.

Moving on.

How to respond to a Craigslist job ad

The Scrub experimented with many different styles. He had the most success with this succinct, direct, no frills, no BS, form letter:

Hi,

My name is The Scrub and I am interested in (name of the position).

I am willing to work for (whatever amount you want to include), and I am available to start immediately.

(If you have experience, write something directly related to what they said in the advertisement, like this:)

As you can tell from my resume (which you will have attached in .pdf or .doc format), I have X years of experience in (whatever the ad says), so I am confident I will be able to (somehow make them money, whether by increasing sales, or profitability...tie it to "more money for them") .

(If, however, you have no experience, write something like this:)

Although I have no experience in X, I am willing to learn.

I look forward to hearing back from you. I can be reached either through this email address or at 555-555-1212.

Thank you,

The Scrub

Do these things and you will eventually run into a job somewhere.

What If Your Household Budget Looked Like the US Debt Limit Deal? (Video)

2012-01-06T08:03:00.003-05:00

The Scrub sez:

lulz

The Year of Scrubdom in Review: 2011

2011-12-31T11:34:00.003-05:00

The Scrub had the biggest year ever for the site. Some boring stats:

- Over 18,000 unique visitors (and not BS page views where you click your own site over and over and pretend it was someone else)

- Over 31,000 unique page views

- The most popular page is, as it will probably always be, the Sample Pay for Deletion Letter.

- The Scrub had his biggest month ever in July, with 2,213 unique visitors and 3,871 unique page views.

Do these stats pale in comparison to your site? Maybe, but keep in mind that Credit Report Scrub is a hyper-technical niche blog designed to be quickly perused and easy to extract information from.

Also, The Scrub does not advertise or even post links to the site on other sites anymore. The Scrub just writes and people find the stories.

Speaking of stories...

The Scrub will now shamelessly post a bunch of links to stories he wrote about that seemed to be enjoyable to others. You can catch up on some of the stories you might have missed, or you can relive the excitement you felt from reading them the first time.

Here is The Scrub ripping into The Consumerist for posting a terrible Sample Dispute Letter...only the start of The Scrub's issues with The Consumerist.

Here is The Scrub Explaining Why Pay for Delete Agreements are Legal. We don't need to cover this topic anymore.

This is The Scrub's First Writing on Social Intelligence Corporation, which will link you to the rest. Some Scrub readers linked this series to a New York Times story on Social Intelligence Corporation which, as you would expect, made this series a popular read.

Here is The Scrub's Commentary on the Supercommittee Failure. We're living through the fallout of this right now.

Here is The Scrub Writing About the Medical Debt Relief Act, which is so important that Congress has put it off for at least another year. Meanwhile, you continue to suffer bad credit because you got sick and/or your insurance company forgot to let you know that they decided to let you die instead of covering your surgery.

Here is The Scrub writing about Income Based Repayment for Student Loans, which you should totally know about if you have low income and student loan debt.

You may have missed The Scrub's Sample Debt Validation Letter being featured in The Consumerist...via plagiarism by a site called Frugal for Life.

And for some reason, this post about what to know before co-signing for a student loan was really popular. Just goes to show that sometimes, the mundane topics still have not been described or explained in simple enough language.

That is all. The Scrub is going to go eat lunch now. Enjoy your holiday and tune in for more exciting news, analysis, and commentary right here on...

CREDIT
REPORT
SCRUB

How to Help Out The Scrub This Holiday Season

2011-12-20T13:43:00.005-05:00

Credit Report Scrub began on June 25, 2008 with the following entry:

First Steps to Repair Your Credit

Since then, The Scrub has spent the last 3.5 years blogging about credit repair, providing sample letters for you to use for free, and even commenting on the political events of the day in a manner that nobody seems to to enjoy. The Scrub has also taken the time to provide free assistance to those of you needing advice.

In return, all The Scrub has asked you to do was to let others know about the site. The Scrub has never charged money for his advice, content, or services. The Scrub has never sold your personal information to advertising companies or spammers. The Scrub has never threatened to hide the good stuff behind a paywall.

Know that, going forward, The Scrub will continue operating as always.

However, The Scrub is now trying to get a job in the consumer credit counseling world. For you see, The Scrub thinks that he can provide these services in the real world, albeit with less profanity, in exchange for monetary remuneration. Wearing a suit and tie. Slicked-back hair and a firm handshake. Smiling and pretending to listen to you. You know, like we do on the site here.

The Scrub in his new career, without the Sam the Eagle suit on

But with the economy the way that it is, The Scrub is having no luck entering into this industry. The Scrub is seriously overqualified for these positions and every interviewer thinks that he will bolt at the first opportunity of a six figure gig in Paris.

But Scrub! If you want them to know about the site, why don't you just link them to the site?

Two reasons.

1. The Scrub doesn't want to sanitize the blog

You see, The Scrub likes to use profanity every so often, and employers today seem to want you to have no personality at all and no opinions.

Sanitizing the blog means no profanity. No profanity means the The Scrub holds his tongue. If The Scrub starts holding his tongue, then the blog ceases to be enjoyable to The Scrub. Once the blog is no longer enjoyable, The Scrub stops writing. Hence, The Scrub will not sanitize the blog. Ever.

2. Simply posting a link to the blog provides no evidence that anyone was really assisted

This is where you come in.

The Scrub needs YOUR testimonial, with just enough information so that an employer will not think it bullshit.

These will not be used on the site. Ever. Never ever ever never never.

They will never be made public. The Scrub will never make copies of them for distribution.

The Scrub will protect them to his dying breath.

And, true to form, The Scrub will even give you a copy and paste template to make it easier for you. All you need to do is fill in the specifics of your situation and authorize The Scrub to use a generic identifier (Bob Smith from Eugene, OR is as specific as you are allowed to get).

Once you copypasta the letter and fill in the blanks, you can send it here:

***

To Whom It May Concern,

My name is (type your name here) and I live in (just type your city and state here. NOTHING MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT PLEASE). This letter is written to inform you that (The Scrub will type his IRL name here, so just leave this part blank) is the type of person that would make an excellent (The Scrub will give the exact name of the job here, most likely some form of Consumer Credit Counselor or Analyst).

I came into contact with Mr. (The Scrub's IRL surname) via a free credit repair website he runs. Specifically, his website came up when I was searching for (whatever search term you typed in).

(If you just used a sample letter, use option A. If you contacted The Scrub and got a helpful answer, use option B.

Option A.

While on his site, I saw that Mr. (The Scrub's IRL surname) had made available to his readers free credit repair letter templates. He had a link to them on his front page and they were very well written. I was able to plug in my personal information and send them off right away.

He saved me hours of time and effort by making those letters freely available. On top of that, by using his letter I was able to (just mention how the letter helped you, such as if you got a settlement offer or an account removed off your credit reports).

Option B.

I contacted Mr. (The Scrub's IRL surname) through his website about (an issue or multiple issues) related to my personal credit troubles. I received a response from Mr. (The Scrub's IRL surname) right away and he

(choose one/multiples of the following, or just add your own:

a. helped me fix my credit problems

b. saved me $X in money

c. helped me negotiate a settlement with a creditor at a steep discount

d. answered my question(s) with detail

e. answered my question(s) in a manner that I understood

f. took the time to explain some things I did not understand about credit repair laws

g. advised me to contact an attorney and doing so saved me a lot of time and heartache)

all for free.

(Then you can say something else here if you like, if you have anything to add. An example would be if you want to add a bit more detail to how you were aided by The Scrub's super-kickass advice. Another example would be if you want to add details to your personal situation, like having collectors calling you and using The Scrub to get them the hell off your back).

Thank you for taking the time to read about my dealings with Mr. (The Scrub's IRL surname). I think he would make an excellent (Dictator, tyrant, or whatever job The Scrub is trying to get).

Sincerely,

(Your name)

(For god's sake don't sign it :P )

The Scrub sez:

Thank you.

What Happens If You Default on a Debt and Move Out of State?

2011-12-12T20:00:00.002-05:00

Short answer:

It depends

Longer answer:

The Scrub was asked this in the comment section to the previously linked entry entitled "What Happens to a Debt if I Move?". The question, though, was a bit more specific in that it asked which set of laws would apply to your debt (your state of residence, your creditor's place of business, Lithuania's ???).

This was, essentially, a Choice of Law question, which The Scrub actually knows quite a bit about.

Here is the question, and here is how The Scrub answered it.

Question:

"Does the state where the default occured matter or just where the debt was opened/incurred?"

Answer:

"There is not an easy way to answer this question because of all the variables and exceptions. The best thing I can tell you is to read your contract closely and see if you unknowingly agreed to something in the contract that answers this question for you.

When you sign for a debt, there will often be a contract provision in the boilerplate language that says "The laws of State X will govern in the event of default", with State X being the state with laws most favorable to the creditor.

However, there are instances where the contract provision may conflict with your state of residence's laws, in which case your state's laws will apply regardless of the contract provision.

Then there are instances where you have no contract provision like I mentioned and you just have to rely on how State A and State B resolve the conflict of the laws between two opposed/differing interpretations of how to handle your situation. That requires an attorney well versed in Choice of Law, and disputes often end in litigation if no clear answer has been given by the courts.

As far as your consumer rights and protections, those things are dependent upon your state of residence and, thus, the creditor has to respect those laws when pursuing you or your property in that state. So if you have a money judgment entered against you from a debt you incurred in NY, but then you move to FL and buy a house, the laws of FL would prevent your creditor from seizing your house because of FL statute...regardless of what NY law says on the matter."

Summary:

It depends.

A Very Special Message From The Scrub

2011-12-01T12:33:00.004-05:00

Go here and give until it hurts
because The Scrub wants to see 2 hours of this type of stuff:

Supercommittee Fail: What Happens Next? Crushing Austerity for Some, Gold-Plated Ivory Backscratchers for Others

2011-11-21T08:07:00.006-05:00

First, go read all the yummy goodness here.

Now then, let us look at some snippets and get a sense of what is actually going to happen.

FTA:

"The deficit-cutting congressional supercommittee is expected to announce tomorrow that it has failed to reach agreement on at least $1.2 trillion in federal budget savings, a Democratic aide said."

The Scrub sez:

The deadline for a deal is November 23, 2011. There ain't gonna be no deal no how no way. This is a controlled leak to minimize the fallout expected from what is discussed in the next snippet.

FTA:

"Senator Pat Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican and supercommittee member, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that the “silver lining” in a failure to agree would be $1.2 trillion in automatic across-the-board budget cuts starting in 2013. That process, known as sequestration, is designed to spare the U.S. from another credit downgrade."

The Scrub sez:

Sequestration across the board isn't going to happen. We're going to have "controlled" sequestration, which means there will be draconian cuts to social welfare programs but all steps will be taken to maintain the War Debt Distraction Economic Model.

FTA:

"Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Senate Republican leader and a supercommittee member, said on “Meet the Press” that Republicans would look for a way “to work around” some of those automatic spending cuts, including easing the mandated $500 billion in cuts to Pentagon spending over the next decade."

The Scrub sez:

This will certainly happen, and the Democrats, Washington Generals of the US Political System will go right along with it.

In other words, at a time when one out of three Americans, roughly 100 million, are either living in poverty in near poverty;

...when a Marine and veteran of Operation Wasteful Desert Clusterfuck gets shot in the face by a cowardly policeman:

...when the police pepper spray you for protesting the wrong group of people (anyone remember Tea Party Protests being broken up in this manner?):

and even when it is blatantly obvious that these loser-fucker, small-dicked policemen have nothing better to do than pepper bomb peaceful protestors:

...the time for back-breaking austerity measures for the 99% is now?

And now word comes along that Wall Street plans to strike back at Occupy Wall Street via ad agencies?

If you fall for this shit, you deserve to have your pensions disappear in the next crash, your parents moving in with you when their Social Security checks won't even cover a week's worth of groceries, your children living at home into their 30's because all the jobs are headed offshore, etc.

Does anyone still doubt that the US is headed for a USSR-style disintegration into smaller, more manageable chunks, as The Scrub predicted here and elsewhere on this blog but is too lazy to find every instance for you?

Also, while we're on the subject, let's get controversial and political...

The Scrub is going to take a moment and speak directly to you about something that you won't be reading just about anywhere else. That subject is the threat of the use of violence.

At the outset, The Scrub would like to point out that he is not urging any of you to commit acts of violence against anyone else. Rather, The Scrub is going to speak candidly on the subject of revolution and repression, and just to be clear, he is doing so from his nice computer in his decent townhouse from the comfort of his living room and not from his bunker holding a machine gun.

Humans are inherently violent creatures struggling to survive in an inherently violent world. If you doubt this, jump the lion fence at the local zoo while wearing a meat necklace and try to reason your way out of being lunch. Or go attend a protest that the powers in charge disapprove of.

Successful revolution invariably depends on the use of violence. Period. All this happy talk about peaceful protests to bring about real political change is bullshit loser talk.

The US government apparatus is owned by very wealthy assholes whose interests directly conflict with the public. So long as you protest shit they agree with, like the Tea Partiers protesting the owned political class and demanding that they cut benefit programs, you can march and scream all you want (even to the point of having several hundred people show up with guns).

The moment you start protesting the real powers in the country i.e. the rich assholes who buy the politicians, you get an eviction notice and a boot to the fucking skull:

Anyone doubt what the outcome would be if several hundred Occupy Wall Street protestors showed up with guns?

Well, most bloggers would stop at that rhetorical question, but The Scrub will continue.

What would happen if several hundred OWS protestors showed up with guns is something that needs to happen in the US. There needs to be a reconfiguration of the relationship between government and governed. There needs to be a genuine fear of the public by the police apparatus, not the public fearing the police, because right now you only have the privilege to protest approved topics and may only do so by protesting the approved facade of government.

And the truth is that until you see the footsoldiers of the elite cowering in fear because the OWS protestors grew a set of nuts and started carrying guns to a protest you will continue to see videos like those above. Instead, we have roid-raging cops tasering unarmed men. Well, technically, un-legged:

In other words, there needs to be a real, palpable fear amongst police that one of them could get shot in the face if they decide to lob a flash grenade at a war veteran. There needs to be a real palpable fear that one of them would get machine gunned to death for pepper spraying obviously peaceful protestors.

Instead, peaceful protestors hold subsequent peaceful marches to protest police violence, which often lead to more police violence and nothing changes.

Meanwhile, the Real IRA is trying something else in Ulster:

The Real IRA has admitted bombing two banks in Northern Ireland as well as the UK City of Culture office in Derry, and has warned that it will continue to target economic interests.

In a statement to the Guardian laced with anti-capitalist rhetoric, the Real IRA said the bombings and future targeting of the banking system were its response to bankers' "greed" and were meant "to send out the message that while the Irish national and class struggles are distinct, they are not separate".

The attacks and the language used in attempting to justify them appeared designed to tap into the widespread public loathing of the banks on both sides of the Irish border.

The Scrub sez:

Editorializing by The Gwardiad aside, The Scrub hopes it doesn't come to that lvel of violence here, but he isn't hopeful of that. Avoiding this type of political violence would require the 1% to stop ass-raping the 99% via inflation, theft of public money (thought that would be about TARP, eh?), theft of private accounts, and outsourcing.

Instead, expect more repression, austerity, and attempts to maintain the status quo via War+Debt+Distraction until the thing snaps and it gets violent on both sides.

Arrested Development is Coming Back, Only on Netflix

2011-11-19T07:29:00.003-05:00

Oh hell yes

Get Declared an Independent Student for College Financial Aid via a Dependency Waiver

2011-11-18T16:19:00.006-05:00

If you were like The Scrub, you ran away from home at 17 and never looked back at the clusterfuck you ran away from.

However, this is not what the Federal Government assumes is the norm. Instead, they assume you will be getting some percentage of your parent's income to pay for your schooling.

They estimate the amount your parents will contribute by requiring you to provide information on their income and wealth status. They crunch the numbers and assign to you an Estimated Family Contribution (EFC) number. From this number they will calculate your eligibility for Pell Grants and other forms of aid.

The problem comes from the assumption that your parents care enough about you to contribute to your education. For you see, in America, it is every man for himself and you should look for any opportunity to get slightly more money for yourself, even if it means leaving your kids out in the cold, since you could use that money to purchase another ivory back scratcher. But like so many other aspects of US culture, we lie and delude ourselves into thinking that isn't the case, so we have an official government policy that totally does not reflect reality.

Anyway...

What can YOU do about this? The Federal guidelines are quite clear in that a student is considered independent, and thus not required to provide parental income and wealth information on the FAFSA, at the tender age of 23.

However, your school's financial aid office probably has the ability to override the Federal guidelines with something called a "dependency waiver". You will likely have to show that you are either working or otherwise providing for your own expenses...that means pay stubs from legitimate companies (sorry, selling pot to a few close friends and associates is not going to work) and probably some copies of bills in your name.

But Scrub! How do I go about getting a dependency waiver?

Call/physically appear in the financial aid office of your school's choice and demand it. Fill it out, provide the documents they request, and you're all set.

And don't blow all your extra Pell Grant money at the track.

Resources for the Screwed: Home Energy Assistance

2011-10-28T08:00:00.000-04:00

Now is the time to apply for home energy assistance. Go to this handy map to find your local point of contact to apply for home energy assistance.

Things you will probably need:

1. Proof of income;

2. A copy of your most recent energy bill, perhaps a few prior statements;

3. A printer to print out the application, or you can go sit in a filthy public aid office for 6 hours, apply in person, and get tuberculosis;

4. Some general idea of what state you live in, and proof thereof.

Please note that each state does things a bit differently, but the link is from a Federal site (HHS.gov) that directs you to the right people in your state.

If you qualify, you'll get credits on your energy bill. In this equation, credits = money. Therefore, you get money forwarded on your behalf to your energy provider to make sure that your heat stays on this winter.

You're welcome.

Here, The Scrub Tells You "The Truth" About Obama's Student Loan Debt Relief Plan (Updated: It Will Save You Between $4 and $8 per Month)

2011-10-26T13:19:00.006-04:00

The Scrub is here to ruin your "Hope", "Change", "Audacity", and "Fierce Urgency of Now" delusions that Obama will do anything substantive to help you with respect to your crippling student loan debt.

...and before you even start, George Bush did IBR, which is the only thing going right now that can help you... and you better use it before it gets taken away.

...and before you ask "what the hell is IBR", The Scrub describes IBR in this blue linky.

There are plenty of things that could help students cope with debt. IBR is one, but it does nothing specifically to help with loans in default or private loans. One solution would be to make student loans easy to discharge in bankruptcy. Another would be to allow all student loans to be consolidated into a federal loan eligible for IBR, which would cap all payments, not just certain federal loans, according to ability to pay. Yet another proposal, inspired by the atrocious 2008 bank bailout's creation of permanent moral hazard, would be to have the government forgive all federal student loan debt. There are others.

But no, Obama didn't do any of that.

Instead, on this day, Obama rode in on a white horse decked out in "We Can't Wait" banners and proposed nothing of substance for the vast majority of student debtors.

This post is long-ish, but The Scrub will make it interesting.

FTA:

In the case of the student lending announcement, the “pay as you earn” part of the plan would accelerate and improve a program to let roughly 1.6 million low-income borrowers cap their loan payments at 10 percent of their discretionary income and forgive the balance of their debt after 20 years. The other piece would be applicable to about 5.8 million borrowers who could save up to half a percent in interest by consolidating Federal Family Education Loans with government direct loans.

The Scrub sez:

The 1.6 million figure is paltry when compared to the estimated 36 million federal student loan holders in the US. Instead, this sounds like weak-willed political posturing at a time when the public is awake to who runs the country and how bad they're getting screwed by the upper 1%.

Also note the "up to half a percent in interest by consolidating..." language. Let The Scrub tell you what that means, since that is the only part of this proposal that could theoretically benefit current debtslaves.

If you qualify by holding the proper mix of high interest federal loans, then you can fill out paperwork and apply to have your loans consolidated in order to possibly dramatically reduce your 8.5% interest rate all the way down to...8%.

More:

It allows Obama to take credit for addressing an economic grievance of voters, but is a modest move that doesn't go anywhere near to solving the root of the problem...

Despite the limitations, it is hard to argue that Obama has much to lose. Indeed, he stands to gain politically for responding to a critical issue, as student loan debt is now surpassing credit card debt.

The Scrub sez:

The Scrub just said that.

More:

For example, recent graduates who are struggling to pay their loans cannot take advantage of the piece that offers the 10 percent cap on monthly repayments and forgives their balance in 20 years, because in order to qualify the borrower would have to take out a loan in 2012.

The Scrub sez:

Note how this provision does nothing for those current student loan debtslaves.

More:

Similarly, borrowers who have only one type of loan or who hold private student loans cannot benefit from the rate reduction since it applies only to those who consolidate Federal Family Education Loans and government direct loans. The offer has a limited window during the first half of next year, and specific details on how to qualify are not available yet.

The Scrub sez:

Further narrowing the pool of debtslaves who may be helped.

More:

Banks and other lenders remain politically unpopular. Their representatives grumbled that the action would force some to accept early payoffs that would limit their earnings, but noted the plan would not delve into the bigger, more lucrative private loan market as some had feared.

The Scrub sez:

The Scrub warned you that Obama sold us out all the way back in this March 2009 post.

More:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office took a preemptive strike against Obama early on Wednesday by releasing a series of articles that said the administration’s ending of the FFEL program last year (which gave lenders government subsidies for offering student loans) cost the country jobs.

The Scrub sez:

You have to admire Sen. McConnell. He is upfront about being a corporate whore, even to the point of referring to himself as Darth Vader at a press conference staunchly defending the free speech rights of corporations.

One final quote FTA:

But neither complaint is likely to be heard over the applause for a break for students.

The Scrub sez:

The Audacity of 8% Student Loans

And of course, Time Magazine shills for the Obama plan as "welcome" and "popular". Further in the article:

Obama will formally announce the executive action — the third in as many days aimed at bypassing Congress and boosting his re-election campaign — at an event in Denver later today..."

The Scrub sez:

So there you have it. More "form over substance" American-style political bullshit.

***

The Scrub would like to conclude this post with the following hypothesis.

To wit:

This plan is not for student debtors. This plan is for public consumption...specifically, for older Americans to look at those "loser" kids and grandkids of theirs and say "See, Obama did something for you too now sit down and stop protesting".

You saw it with the Tea Party protests being co-opted by the mainstream Republican party. You are beginning to see it with the Democrats and the Occupy Wall Street movement.

A significant chunk of the OWS protestors are recent college grads with gigantic loan payments and few job opportunities. Since what matters in modern American politics is only to appear to be doing something, you have this proposal designed to make the OWS protestors look like spoiled brats, rather than the generation lining up to be taxed to death in order to pay for everyone else's mistakes, war-mongering, entitlements, and greed.

Update:

Obama's plan will save the average student debtslave between $4 and $8 per month on average

Snip:

Using these values as the high and low bounds of average student debt over the last ten years, the monthly savings for the average student loan borrower would be between $4.50 and $7.75 per month. Clearly, this isn't going to save the economy. While borrowers with bigger balances would save more, this is the average. And even someone with $100,000 in loans would only cut their monthly payments by $28.50.

The Scrub sez:

Resources for the Screwed: Your Local Community College

2011-10-17T13:26:00.002-04:00

The Scrub is doing a quick hit-and-run post here, so we'll be brief but wildly effective and life-changing.

If you are:

a. unemployed

b. underemployed

c. hate your job

d. planning to murder your boss and/or co-workers

e. other

and you are looking for a way out, go find a local community college and get into a new career.

Which career Scrub?

Here are some ideas for your new career. Of course, you can always Google that shit yo.

But what are the long term prospects for those jobs, Scrub?

Here is the BLS link to research employment projections for every career known to the American government.

But Scrub! I don't have the money to go back to college!

Contact the school of your choice's financial aid office and let them tell you that there is no money for you.

But Scrub! I'm too lazy/irresponsible/filled with hate for my fellow man/shitty at mathsciencereading!

Suck it up and cope pardner! You don't have to be the best ever at anything you do. Show up for class on time, stay awake, turn in your work on time, and you'll probably pass...and all you'll need to do is pass. C's get degrees.

But Scrub! I don't have 2 years to dick around with getting yet another degree!

Then look at getting some type of certification that makes you employable. Some certifications take less than 4 full time semesters.

Good luck. Scrub out!

2011-10-05T21:05:00.001-04:00

I am honored to be with you today at your commencement from one of the finest universities in the world. I never graduated from college. Truth be told, this is the closest I've ever gotten to a college graduation. Today I want to tell you three stories from my life. That's it. No big deal. Just three stories.

The first story is about connecting the dots.

I dropped out of Reed College after the first 6 months, but then stayed around as a drop-in for another 18 months or so before I really quit. So why did I drop out?

It started before I was born. My biological mother was a young, unwed college graduate student, and she decided to put me up for adoption. She felt very strongly that I should be adopted by college graduates, so everything was all set for me to be adopted at birth by a lawyer and his wife. Except that when I popped out they decided at the last minute that they really wanted a girl. So my parents, who were on a waiting list, got a call in the middle of the night asking: "We have an unexpected baby boy; do you want him?" They said: "Of course." My biological mother later found out that my mother had never graduated from college and that my father had never graduated from high school. She refused to sign the final adoption papers. She only relented a few months later when my parents promised that I would someday go to college.

And 17 years later I did go to college. But I naively chose a college that was almost as expensive as Stanford, and all of my working-class parents' savings were being spent on my college tuition. After six months, I couldn't see the value in it. I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life and no idea how college was going to help me figure it out. And here I was spending all of the money my parents had saved their entire life. So I decided to drop out and trust that it would all work out OK. It was pretty scary at the time, but looking back it was one of the best decisions I ever made. The minute I dropped out I could stop taking the required classes that didn't interest me, and begin dropping in on the ones that looked interesting.

It wasn't all romantic. I didn't have a dorm room, so I slept on the floor in friends' rooms, I returned coke bottles for the 5¢ deposits to buy food with, and I would walk the 7 miles across town every Sunday night to get one good meal a week at the Hare Krishna temple. I loved it. And much of what I stumbled into by following my curiosity and intuition turned out to be priceless later on. Let me give you one example:

Reed College at that time offered perhaps the best calligraphy instruction in the country. Throughout the campus every poster, every label on every drawer, was beautifully hand calligraphed. Because I had dropped out and didn't have to take the normal classes, I decided to take a calligraphy class to learn how to do this. I learned about serif and san serif typefaces, about varying the amount of space between different letter combinations, about what makes great typography great. It was beautiful, historical, artistically subtle in a way that science can't capture, and I found it fascinating.

None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But ten years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, it's likely that no personal computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do. Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college. But it was very, very clear looking backwards ten years later.

Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.

My second story is about love and loss.

I was lucky — I found what I loved to do early in life. Woz and I started Apple in my parents garage when I was 20. We worked hard, and in 10 years Apple had grown from just the two of us in a garage into a $2 billion company with over 4000 employees. We had just released our finest creation — the Macintosh — a year earlier, and I had just turned 30. And then I got fired. How can you get fired from a company you started? Well, as Apple grew we hired someone who I thought was very talented to run the company with me, and for the first year or so things went well. But then our visions of the future began to diverge and eventually we had a falling out. When we did, our Board of Directors sided with him. So at 30 I was out. And very publicly out. What had been the focus of my entire adult life was gone, and it was devastating.

I really didn't know what to do for a few months. I felt that I had let the previous generation of entrepreneurs down - that I had dropped the baton as it was being passed to me. I met with David Packard and Bob Noyce and tried to apologize for screwing up so badly. I was a very public failure, and I even thought about running away from the valley. But something slowly began to dawn on me — I still loved what I did. The turn of events at Apple had not changed that one bit. I had been rejected, but I was still in love. And so I decided to start over.

I didn't see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life.

During the next five years, I started a company named NeXT, another company named Pixar, and fell in love with an amazing woman who would become my wife. Pixar went on to create the worlds first computer animated feature film, Toy Story, and is now the most successful animation studio in the world. In a remarkable turn of events, Apple bought NeXT, I returned to Apple, and the technology we developed at NeXT is at the heart of Apple's current renaissance. And Laurene and I have a wonderful family together.

I'm pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn't been fired from Apple. It was awful tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it. Sometimes life hits you in the head with a brick. Don't lose faith. I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You've got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle. As with all matters of the heart, you'll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don't settle.

My third story is about death.

When I was 17, I read a quote that went something like: "If you live each day as if it was your last, someday you'll most certainly be right." It made an impression on me, and since then, for the past 33 years, I have looked in the mirror every morning and asked myself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" And whenever the answer has been "No" for too many days in a row, I know I need to change something.

Remembering that I'll be dead soon is the most important tool I've ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything — all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure - these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.

About a year ago I was diagnosed with cancer. I had a scan at 7:30 in the morning, and it clearly showed a tumor on my pancreas. I didn't even know what a pancreas was. The doctors told me this was almost certainly a type of cancer that is incurable, and that I should expect to live no longer than three to six months. My doctor advised me to go home and get my affairs in order, which is doctor's code for prepare to die. It means to try to tell your kids everything you thought you'd have the next 10 years to tell them in just a few months. It means to make sure everything is buttoned up so that it will be as easy as possible for your family. It means to say your goodbyes.

I lived with that diagnosis all day. Later that evening I had a biopsy, where they stuck an endoscope down my throat, through my stomach and into my intestines, put a needle into my pancreas and got a few cells from the tumor. I was sedated, but my wife, who was there, told me that when they viewed the cells under a microscope the doctors started crying because it turned out to be a very rare form of pancreatic cancer that is curable with surgery. I had the surgery and I'm fine now.

This was the closest I've been to facing death, and I hope it's the closest I get for a few more decades. Having lived through it, I can now say this to you with a bit more certainty than when death was a useful but purely intellectual concept:

No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.

Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.

When I was young, there was an amazing publication called The Whole Earth Catalog, which was one of the bibles of my generation. It was created by a fellow named Stewart Brand not far from here in Menlo Park, and he brought it to life with his poetic touch. This was in the late 1960's, before personal computers and desktop publishing, so it was all made with typewriters, scissors, and polaroid cameras. It was sort of like Google in paperback form, 35 years before Google came along: it was idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions.

Stewart and his team put out several issues of The Whole Earth Catalog, and then when it had run its course, they put out a final issue. It was the mid-1970s, and I was your age. On the back cover of their final issue was a photograph of an early morning country road, the kind you might find yourself hitchhiking on if you were so adventurous. Beneath it were the words: "Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish." It was their farewell message as they signed off. Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish. And I have always wished that for myself. And now, as you graduate to begin anew, I wish that for you.

Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.

Thank you all very much.

Source

Bank of America May Be on the Verge of Collapse, Plan Accordingly

2011-10-03T12:27:00.004-04:00

Just a quick heads-up from The Scrub. Bank of America is having all sorts of issues, per Zero Hedge.

This could be nothing, and it probably is, but it would be wise to make sure you have some cash on hand in case they are about to do a belly flop. Even if the bank collapses entirely, the FDIC will likely make depositors whole, but don't be caught in the lurch with 29 cents to last the next day or two.

Updated @ 1 p.m. est:

Bank of America's stock price is sinking fast, under $6 per share now

Updated 1:10 pm est:

Duh, here is why a five handle on BAC stock is bad. Sorry, The Scrub forgets to "show his work" at times.

Senators Request That Social Intelligence Corporation Address Some of The Scrub's Questions, Ignore Most Important Ones

2011-09-28T09:38:00.008-04:00

If you find yourself asking "what is Social Intelligence corporation and why is it so bad", go read The Scrub's appropriately titled entry What is Social Intelligence Corporation, and Why is it So Bad? for background.

-Scrub

Read the Blumenthal/Franken Questions to Max Drucker here.

Optimist Scrub sez:

Congressional action in this sphere will help, if nothing more than to pressure SIC to cease the worst abuses. A public show trial will raise some red flags and, hopefully, cause enough economic devastation to Social Intelligence Corporation that it goes out of business before they have a chance to "accidentally" leak data to unauthorized users.

Pessimist Scrub sez:

This is nothing more than a public show trial designed to do the following:

1. Give the appearance that Congress is doing something to protect civil liberties/online anonymity/personal freedom

The US Government does not give a shit about your civil liberties. They only care about giving you the appearance that you have rights. The Scrub defers to the preeminent philosopher of our time on this issue:

The Scrub sez:

Obviously.

2. Provide cover for a possible foreign intelligence operation

Note that Richard Blumenthal and Al Franken, both of whom happen to be Jewish, did not bother to address the possibility that Social Intelligence Corporation is a private spying entity acting on behalf of a foreign government.

To put the matter delicately, the Scrub questions whether these two Senators are the right folks to go after SIC/Max Drucker if, as The Scrub believes, there is a foreign intelligence gathering component to what they do.

Here is AIPAC's take on Senator Richard Blumenthal:

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) captured 54 percent of the vote to defeat World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon (R) in the race to fill the seat of retiring five-term Sen. Chris Dodd (D).

Blumenthal, who met with AIPAC, has a number of cousins who live in Israel and authored a position paper in which he wrote about visiting the Jewish state in 1976 with the then-U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

The trip taught him that “Israel is not only an ally of strategic necessity, but a partner with deeply-held commitments to America’s own foundational values of democracy, rule of law, individual liberty, religious freedom, and the pursuit of international peace.”

He added, “It is critical that the United States continue to support Israel as a free, peaceful and Jewish state. Clearly, my close ties to the Jewish homeland constantly remind me that peace and stability in Israel must remain a top priority in the United States Senate.”

And here is Al Franken pledging his support for Israel too.

Think The Scrub is crazy? Go read this piece about what the US counterintelligence community thinks about Israeli spying inside the United States:

Israel's spying on the U.S., however, is a matter of public record, and neither conspiracy nor theory is needed to present the evidence. When the FBI produces its annual report to Congress concerning "Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage," Israel and its intelligence services often feature prominently as a threat second only to China. In 2005 the FBI noted, for example, that Israel maintains "an active program to gather proprietary information within the United States." A key Israeli method, said the FBI report, is computer intrusion.

The Scrub sez:

Might as well get Uncle Leo's take on all this bashing...

3. Attempt to solve SIC/Max Drucker's "Google problem"

Conduct a simple Google search for "Max Drucker" or "Social Intelligence Corporation" and you come up with a few Scrub entries among the first few results. Although it is not as bad as Rick Santorum's Google problem, it is still quite uncomfortable to have your very own Social Intelligence Report outing you as a possible foreign spy when noobz query Google about you. Kind of makes it hard to operate with your cover blown for free by a gigantic taking Eagle named "The Scrub" who only did it for the lulz.

Thus, enter Congress with a competing set of neutered questions for social intelligence corporation to try to drown out The Scrub's more pointed, and uncomfortably eye-opening, questions.

The Medical Debt Relief Act: What is it, and Why Hasn't it Passed Yet?

2011-09-17T08:46:00.005-04:00

The Medical Debt Relief Act is a proposed law that will change how delinquent medical bills are reported once paid. Watch this video, which should have waaaaay more than 522 views, for the nuts and bolts:

The Scrub sez:

Note how when they went to lobby our loser-ific legislature, everybody supported it until it came time to actually schedule a vote on it. The Scrub could spend the next 25,000 words writing on yet another example of congressional ineptitude, but won't for now. Instead, The Scrub will just highlight the existence of a proposal that would close the biggest problem with the US credit reporting model.

But Scrub! How is medical debt collection a failure of US credit reporting?

Because credit reporting/credit scoring is supposed to gauge risk: whether you pay back your loans, whether you pay your utility bills, whether you are applying for credit, etc. It is not foolproof, but it works, for the most part.

Medical debt is different because it is, in large part, a crapshoot: whether you get sick or not, whether your provider reports you to a credit bureau, whether you are told about the collection activity, whether you are told that your health insurer denied paying some/all of your bill, etc. These are all things that happen to you that you have no control over...as such, they are less of a measure of your financial responsibility and more of a measure of how unlucky you are.

Marketwatch Proposes a Solution to the Ongoing Financial Crisis...The Scrub Agrees with Their Proposal

2011-09-12T12:01:00.004-04:00

Quick post by The Scrub to direct your attention to the best damned article he has read in a loooong time:

Massive default is best way to fix the economy

Snippet to whet your appetite:

It’s the debt, stupid.

We’re hocked up to the eyeballs, and then some. We’re at the bottom of a lake of debt, lashed to an anchor. American households today owe $13.3 trillion. That has quadrupled in a generation. It has doubled just in the last 11 years. We owe more than any other nation, ever. And for all the yakking about how people are “repairing their balance sheets,” they’re not. From the peak, four years ago, they’ve cut their debts by a grand total of 4%.

And a lot of that was in write-offs.

The Scrub sez:

Read the whole thing. It should give you insight as to why the government is pursuing these policies (rob grandma and junior to pay off bankers) instead of pursuing the recommended course of action (scumbag banksters may have to lose .01% of their net worth in haircuts).

The Scrub is Really Busy...Here is a Post to Tide You Over

2011-09-10T16:04:00.002-04:00

Max's guest goes into a lot of really interesting history about how debt and money were viewed up until very recently.

The Scrub will return to normal blogging in a week or so...sorry.

Just How Bad Was the 2008 Bank Bailout?

2011-08-31T09:30:00.000-04:00

Somehow, it was even worse than The Scrub thought.

Make sure you are sitting down when watching this video, and that no weapons are nearby for you to grab and begin to smash the things around you:

The Scrub sez:

How Many Credit Scores Are There?

2011-08-30T10:30:00.001-04:00

Short answer:

Lots.

Long answer:

Lots.

As The Scrub has previously mentioned, FICO lost a lawsuit against Experian, Equifax, TransUnion, and VantageScores that was centered around alternative credit scores. These companies may offer/continue to offer their own alternatives to FICO scoring as a result...so we can throw them into the mix.

You may also know that you can get your FICO score here, and that FICO is the industry standard. But note that this FICO score may not be the actual score used by your lender. FICO has other scores the lender may use on your loan.

Huh?

Yeah, FICO offers specialized FICO scores for lenders that differ from your cookie-cutter generic FICO score (or what The Scrub calls your "generi-FICO" when he attends cocktail parties to hobnob with the elite).

For example, if you go look at the "FICO Products Page" The Scrub just linked to, you can see that FICO offers a FICO Mortgage Score:

The FICO® Mortgage Score is designed to help mortgage lenders improve credit decisions for both current and future homeowners. The score delivers significantly greater assessment of mortgage repayment risk—up to 15% or more for key population segments, compared to the base FICO® Score. The score aids servicers in earlier identification of borrowers at risk, mitigating the incidence and high cost of foreclosure.

The Scrub sez:

So when you go to the bank to apply for the loan on your dream home (or even that run-down POS home you're being guilted into purchasing by your cousin), there can be some level of difference between the generic FICO score you diligently pulled prior to applying and the FICO score your lender uses to gauge their risk.

But Scrub! Why do they use a different number?

Because these scores are a bit better tailored for that particular lender.

So is the generi-FICO score useless?

No. Many lenders use it.

Can I request any of my specific FICO scores?

The Scrub is not aware of any of the specific FICO scores being for sale to the general public.

What is the difference between how the generic FICO is calculated and one of the specific FICO's?

Well...here is how your generic FICO score is calculated, for the most part. These are rough estimates based on multiple sources.

Less is known about how the specific FICO scores are calculated. The Scrub will make an educated guess and tell you that they probably just change the weighting of certain items in your report based upon the type of loan for which you are applying and your history with that specific type of loan...but The Scrub could be hellaciously wrong about that.

Your site has been online since June 2008. Why the hell are you just getting around to writing about this now?

The Scrub only wrote about this because a reader asked about it.

The Scrub is concerned about confusion in the credit score/credit report industry and wanted to keep things simple...kind of like how you refer to every single damned photocopier in existence as a "Xerox" machine. Yes, The Scrub could introduce you to a FICO score page that lists 27 different scores and render the information so opaque that nobody reads it...or he could just keep it simple and not scare everyone away with walls of text.

So is it worth the money for me to check my generic FICO?

The Scrub thinks so.

As stated earlier, many lenders will work off of the same generic FICO score you see. If your particular lender uses a specific FICO score, then your generic FICO will still let you see what they see and give you an idea of how you will fare, what type of interest rate you will qualify for, etc.

How Do I Know if I Have a Judgment on an Old Debt?

2011-08-26T11:00:00.001-04:00

Well, if you have a big stack of papers indicating that you've been sued and it has been over a month since you got them, you probably have a judgment. But if you remember getting those papers, then you probably aren't going to be reading this post anyway. So let's assume you don't recall getting any notice of a lawsuit. What do you do?

First step is to check your credit reports. The status of your debt should be reflected on your credit reports. The language varies, but you will probably have some sort of notification in the public records area. If there is something there, it should give you the county courthouse where the judgment was reported. Contact them and ask. They are public records, so you should be able to request copies.

If the status of your account is not indicated on your credit reports, you could still have a judgment out there somewhere that is just not being reported yet. Court records are usually reported every month or two, depending on the area. That means that if you checked your reports today (8/26/2011), a judgment may not be listed even though it was entered against you as far back as late June 2011.

If you cannot find any court records and you didn't receive any papers, then you're in good shape.

***For more information

Read about why deficiency judgments are so bad for your credit

Say Nyanything

2011-08-22T18:51:00.001-04:00

FICO Loses Lawsuit Against Experian, Equifax, TransUnion, and VantageScores Over Alternate Credit Scoring

2011-08-20T12:50:00.003-04:00

Read all about it:

Experian prevails in FICO lawsuit:

Experian®, the global information services company, announced today that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled unanimously in favor of Experian, confirming earlier decisions by the district court and a federal jury in a lawsuit brought by FICO against Experian, Equifax, TransUnion and VantageScore Solutions, LLC, challenging the VantageScore and PLUS Score credit scoring services.

“Today’s decision once again confirms the value of competition and choice in credit scoring,” said Kerry Williams, group president, Experian Credit Services and Decision Analytics, North America. “FICO filed this meritless case for the sole purpose of eliminating the powerful competition introduced by VantageScore in the credit scoring marketplace and impeding industry innovation. However, every one of FICO’s claims has been repeatedly rejected by the courts.”

The Scrub sez:

In theory, competition is good.

In practice, FICO has such an enormous market share that there really is no competition at present...and there is no reason to think that will change any time soon. FICO does good work, for the most part.

One must also keep in mind that there is such confusion in the credit scoring/reporting industry that the introduction of new scores muddies the waters further. The Scrub doesn't think alternative scores should be precluded from entering the marketplace, mind you...just that The Scrub worries about your typical uninformed consumer requesting a free credit report and getting upsold on a non-FICO credit score that tells them nothing.

When you throw in the fact that the range of VantageScores is from 501-990, you introduce another level of unnecessary confusion into the mix. Grandma Wilma requests her free credit report, gets upsold a VantageScore that indicates her score is 750, then falsely believes that she has a good credit score.

The Scrub will compare this to baseball. Baseball has a monopoly, because there is no reason to have any competition or open market. However, imagine a situation where the statistical analysis of two competing professional baseball leagues involves completely different methods of calculating batting averages. Thus, in league 1, a .250 batting average might lead the league, while in league 2, the same batting average might get you a spot on the bench. Making simplistic comparisons based on batting averages between the two leagues is something a lot of people would do, but they would be wrong to do so.

Thus is credit scoring. Yes, it is legal to have a different range for scoring amongst credit scores.

But does it push back the level of ignorance about scoring among the general public? No, it does not.

So sayeth The Scrub. Enjoy yer weekend.

Do I Get One Free Credit Report Per Year, or One Free Credit Report Per 12 Month Period?

2011-08-11T12:39:00.008-04:00

This is another one of those simple questions that The Scrub is surprised to have never answered.

We all know, or at least you should know, that you are allowed to request, for free, one credit report from each credit bureau per year. However, The Scrub was recently asked if the time frame is for one calendar year, or one 12 month period.

The answer is that it is one free credit report per 12 month period from each credit bureau. Here is how it works:

You request your free credit report from TransUnion on December 1st 2011, and receive it the same day. You will not be allowed to receive another free credit report from TransUnion until December 1st, 2012 at the earliest.

In other words, you could not request your TransUnion report on December 1st 2011, then turn around and request another free TransUnion report on January 1st, 2012. This is because it is one free report per 12 month period.

However, if you had an adverse credit action based on your TransUnion report, you could request a copy of it. But that is separate from what we are discussing now. Your free "annual credit report" is authorized under something called the "Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act", or FACTA. This is the law that applies to the question asked in the headline.

Your right to request a free copy of your credit report after you have had an adverse credit decision comes from the "Fair Credit Reporting Act", or FCRA.

But Scrub! I don't understand the difference!

Under FACTA, anyone can request a free copy of their report. No credit decision is necessary to trigger the duty for the bureau to provide you with a copy. The law states you only get one free report per bureau per 12 month period.

Under the FCRA, though, you had an adverse credit decision based on decision in a credit report. Thus, the law assumes that you might want a copy of it to see what the decision was based on and to take steps to fix the problem. Since that would normally require paying money, the FCRA makes an exception and forces the bureau to hand over the information to you for free.

But Scrub! Why does it always seem like everyone says you get 1 free report per year? That is confusing!

Yes, but the reason they say it like that is because people tend to request all 3 reports at the same time. Besides, it just sounds better. Compare:

#1:

"You get one free copy of your credit report per year!"

with:

#2:

"You get one free copy of your credit report per 12 month period as calculated from the last credit report you received from that credit bureau!"

Number one is a good slogan. Number two is a hyper-technical, and usually unnecessary, explanation that causes even the most jaded credit repair nutcases to have their eyes glaze over with boredom.

***One More Thing...okay, Three More Things

1. In these types of posts, The Scrub will often be asked about obtaining a free FICO credit score. The Scrub explains, absent a lot of butt-kissing as recommended by commenter Kevin, why you can't get a free FICO score in the blue linky.

2. Another question that often comes up in these types of posts is in regards to places like Chexsystems. The answer is yes, you are entitled to receive one free report from places like Chexsystems per 12 month period under FACTA.

3. A hot topic for discussion recently has been in regards to a company called Social Intelligence Corporation, an outfit that conducts deep searches of social media sites to data mine job applicants.

Even though they claim to be a consumer reporting agency and, thus, covered by the FCRA, you cannot currently obtain a free copy of your social intelligence report under FACTA. The Scrub thinks this is bullshit, so he decided to do a social intelligence report on the CEO of Social Intelligence Corporation, Max Drucker and release it to the public for free.

Feds Want to Start Renting Foreclosed Homes

2011-08-10T15:47:00.005-04:00

The madness continues.

US Government to Start Renting Foreclosed Homes:

The Obama administration may turn thousands of government-owned foreclosures into rental properties to help boost falling home prices.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency said Wednesday it is seeking input from investors on how to rent homes owned by government-controlled mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration.

The U.S. government rescued Fannie and Freddie in September 2008 and has funded them since the financial crisis. The mortgage giants own or guarantee about half of the nation's mortgages and nearly all new mortgages.

At the end of last month, the government owned roughly 248,000 foreclosed homes, officials said. About 70,000 of those are listed for sale. But officials expect the number of foreclosures to soar in the coming months.

Many foreclosures have been stalled so attorneys general and federal regulators can investigate whether lenders cut corners and improperly handled thousands of cases. Once a settlement is finalized, foreclosures are expected to pick up again and further depress home prices.

Converting the homes into rentals may reduce "credit losses and help stabilize neighborhoods and home values," said Edward DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie and Freddie.

Homes in foreclosure sell at a 20 percent discount on average, which can hurt prices of surrounding homes.

It also might meet the growing demand for rentals. Since the housing meltdown, nearly 3 million households have become renters. At least 3 million more are expected by 2015, according to census data analyzed by Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies and The Associated Press.

The Scrub sez:

The US government is run by fucking morons.

Here is a plan to solve the foreclosure fraud problem that would actually work. This is basically the same thing the government used to solve the S&L Crisis. Remember how the Savings and Loan Crisis caused the end of the world?

No?

Well, that is probably because it didn't.

So we have a template to follow that worked in the past quite well for similar problems. Let's not do that.

Instead, let us get Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, entities that could end up costing us $1 trillion to bailout, involved in rental properties:

For American taxpayers, now on the hook for some $145 billion in housing losses connected to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans, that amount could be just the tip of the iceberg.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the losses could balloon to $400 billion. And if housing prices fall further, some experts caution, the cost to the taxpayer could hit as much as $1 trillion.

The Scrub sez:

This should work out well, right?

Just to warn you in advance:

Once this plan gets close to being enacted, you will start seeing propaganda from mainstream journalists about how cheap and effective this program will be. They will be lying to you. These are the same liars who tried to convince you that bailing out Fannie and Freddie would be a good bargain:

But if Fannie and Freddie exhaust the patience of the private sector—the shareholders—and can't raise capital to make up for losses on the mortgage portfolio—they would have to turn to the government. How much would they need?

This is a great unknown. But it's hard to imagine it would approach a figure close to $100 billion. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't make subprime loans, although they do have some exposure to subprime debt through assets they purchased. Rather, they make loans to people who make down payments and who buy houses under a certain price (the maximum loan last year was $417,000). As a result, the companies avoided funding lots of mortgages in expensive, bubbly markets. In the fourth quarter of 2007, the delinquency rates for mortgages on single-family homes were 0.65 percent for Freddie Mac and 0.98 percent for Fannie Mae.

Let's assume for the moment that 5 percent of the $5.2 trillion in mortgages that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hold or insure goes bad, which would represent a massive (and unlikely) uptick from current numbers. Lawrence White says that because of the company's underwriting standards, the losses on those loans would be only about 30 percent. Run the numbers, and the potential losses—i.e., the amount of federal funds needed to make bond investors whole assuming the GSEs can't raise any more outside capital—would be about $78 billion. If 2 percent of the mortgages the GSEs hold or insure goes bad—a much more reasonable guess—the government would have to come up with about $31 billion. Those are big hypothetical costs for taxpayers. But they would still be smaller than the actual benefits taxpayers—or at least the large majority of taxpayers who are homeowners—have already received.

The Scrub sez:

The Global Economy is in Freefall, All Eyes on the Fed

2011-08-08T23:00:00.004-04:00

The Financial Times is reporting that the Federal Reserve is now considering a new round of money printing to stave off economic collapse:

If the Fed does want to do something, then its options are the same as they have been for the past couple of years....

That leaves the final option: acknowledgment of the weaker economic data and a robust signal, delivered either on Tuesday or in the chairman’s speech at Jackson Hole on August 26, that the Fed is willing to act to counter any deflation risks that emerge.

Such has been the plunge in markets that the Fed may now feel that it has to do something. For example, it could combine strong language with a “mini twist”, reinvesting maturing securities from its portfolio into longer-term assets.

But the crucial point is that none of these options are especially appealing. They all come with costs and those that are easier to do will not impart much stimulus to the economy. That means the greater risk to markets is that the Fed is cautious and does less than they demand on Tuesday.

The Scrub sez:

The whole "if the Fed chooses to act" idea is absurd. If Mr. Bernanke decides to let the market sort this mess out, here is what happens for the rest of the week:

Printing money is the last bullet in the chamber, and it is going to be fired. Book it.

Just hope that the markets can wait until tomorrow afternoon for the announcement.

In the meantime, you should probably watch this video:

Act accordingly.

The Scrub's Commentary on the Today's Market Action

2011-08-08T14:35:00.003-04:00

The US Economy is swirling in the toilet

2:35p
Bank of America now down 50% year-to-date
2:33p
Brazil's Bovespa index down 31% year-to-date
2:32p
Genworth shares off 21.4%, worst S&P 500 performer
2:27p
Citi shares tumble 19% as banks stocks battered
2:26p
Dow industrials off 600 points
2:26p
Bank of America loses 22% as slide worsens
2:25p
Nasdaq now down more 10% year-to-date
2:18p
Dow industrials off 500 points at 10,941
2:18p
Oil loses 5.2% as stocks sink
2:03p
Dollar gains slightly as Obama speaks
2:00p
Nasdaq Composite falls 124 points to 2,408.56
2:00p
Oil falls 4%, adds to losses as Obama speaks
2:00p
S&P 500 Index dips 60 points to 1,139.28
2:00p
Markets will rise and fall, Obama says
2:00p
Dow industrials off 447 points at 10,998.38
1:59p
Obama: extend payroll tax cut, jobless benefits
1:58p
Obama to unveil fiscal ideas in coming weeks
1:58p
Treasurys stay up sharply as Obama speaks
1:56p
Obama calls for tax reform, Medicare changes
1:55p
U.S. fiscal problems 'eminently solvable': Obama
1:55p
Stocks trim losses as Obama addresses downgrade
1:54p
Obama: we need balanced deficit reduction approach
1:54p
Obama: markets believe our credit status is AAA
1:54p
Obama: we need balanced deficit reduction approach
1:48p
Gold jumps 3.7% to end at record $1,713.20/ounce
1:47p
Dow Chemical down 8.6%
1:47p
U.S. stocks at session lows; Dow off 429 points
1:42p
Dow industrials fall 400 points to 11,043.86
1:16p
AIG shares fall 10.5%
1:03p
Gold hits new intraday record, surpasses $1,721/oz
12:21p
Nasdaq Composite down 101.53 points at 2,430.89
12:20p
S&P 500 Index down 44.62 pionts to 1,154.77
12:20p
Dow industrials fall 340 points to 11,104.41
12:20p
S&P 500 Index down 44.62 pionts to 1,154.77
11:57a
Bank of America losses grow, shares now off 14%
11:46a
Cost to insure U.S. debt stable, French CDS rise
11:33a
Stoxx Europe 600 equity index ends down nearly 4%
11:32a
European stock markets close with sharp losses
11:06a
Fannie, Freddie, housing bonds to hold up OK: RBS
11:02a
VIX market volatility index surges 23% to 39.38
10:45a
S&P cuts Israeli bonds guaranteed by U.S. to 'AA+'
10:39a
France's CAC 40 index sinks 4.4% to 3,134.79
10:38a
Germany's DAX 30 index slumps 5% to 5,927.36
10:37a
Europe's Stoxx 600 index down 3.8%, extending drop
10:34a
Losses mount for oil, off 4.1% to $83.31 a barrel
10:31a
Nasdaq Composite falls 95.70 points to 2,436.62
10:31a
S&P downgrades Fannie, Freddie to AA+ from AAA
10:30a
S&P 500 Index declines 43.61 points to 1,155.77
10:30a
Dow industrials fall 350 points to 11,090.11
10:29a
Corporate, junk bonds weaken after U.S. downgrade
10:27a
U.S. stock losses intensify; Dow down 330 points
10:19a
Dow industrials down 295 points at 11,149.55
9:58a
S&P: Europe debt outlook better than U.S. outlook
9:57a
S&P does not see U.S. quickly returning to AAA
9:54a
Genworth shares fall 7% in early trade
9:53a
Newmont Mining rises 2.4%, top S&P 500 gainer
9:35a
Gold hovers around $1,700 an ounce as stocks open
9:33a
Nasdaq Composite falls 79.72 points to 2,452.69
9:33a
S&P 500 Index drops 26.45 points to 1,172.93
9:32a
Dow industrials fall 226.98 points to 11,217.63
9:32a
U.S. stocks open sharply lower on downgrade
8:33a
Dollar turns up vs. euro on long-term worries
8:04a
McDonald's systemwide sales up 14%
8:03a
McDonald's Europe July same-store sales up 5.3%
8:02a
McDonald's U.S. same-store sales up 4.4%
8:02a
McDonald's July comparable sales up 5.1%
8:01a
Verizon shares fall 3% in preopen trade

The Scrub sez:

Co-signing a Loan: What You Need to Know Before You Do It

2011-08-08T11:47:00.004-04:00

The Scrub is not going to tell you to never ever ever cosign a loan, because there are instances where co-signing a loan may be something you want to do. However, The Scrub wants to make you aware of what happens when you do co-sign because there are risks.

Normally, The Scrub would do some numbered bullet points. Instead, we're doing one big ass bullet point:

Big ass bullet point #1:

No matter who the person is, whether a relative, friend, neighbor, business partner, or guy you met at a public bathroom, when you co-sign a loan you are telling the lender that you wish to be held equally liable for the loan

That usually means that the borrower gets the money, but you backstop the lender in case the borrower decides not to pay. This often comes up in emailed questions to The Scrub in the context of student loans, but it applies equally well to consumer loans like automobiles.

Thus, for example, if you co-sign a student loan for your nephew and your nephew defaults, the lender can come after you as if you were the one who borrowed $75,000 to major in Ancient Babylonian Sandcastles.

You may not think much of it now, but here is how that could work.

Suppose your nephew loses his job and defaults. The lender automatically starts calling you and demanding that you make the payments.

If you refuse to make the payments, the lender will resort to garnishing your wages or seek to obtain a deficiency judgment against the both of you.

If you try to file for bankruptcy, the money judgment for the loan will probably not be discharged and you'll still owe it.

If you die, the lender will most likely end up a major creditor to your estate and get paid out of liquidating your property prior to any of your wishes as outlined in your will.

Is co-signing a loan always a terrible idea? No. However, a lot of grief and misery could be saved from fully disclosing the ramifications for co-signing.

But Scrub! I have already co-signed a loan and my nephew's B.S. in Ancient Babylonian Sandcastle did not lead to a job that pays well enough to make the payments on his loan. What can I do now?

Your nephew needs to read up about Income Based Repayment and get into that. Even if the loan you co-signed for is private, your nephew probably had government loans too. IBR is for government loans, and perhaps your nephew could make the private loan payments were he in IBR for the others.

Beyond that, The Scrub recommends that you think through your student loan troubles after reading The Scrub's appropriately titled entry Student Loan Trouble.

As Promised, The Scrub's Commentary on the US' Loss of AAA Rating

2011-08-05T19:09:00.007-04:00

The Scrub could spend this post gloating, but he already did that. Instead, The Scrub wants to get into answering one simple question.

So how did the US lose the AAA rating?

The Scrub sez:

The political sycophants and charlatans are already trying to politicize the downgrade of US debt to AA+. The finger pointing has already started. The Scrub was going to link you to a whole bunch of discussions, but fuck them. They're all part of the War Debt Distraction Model of Governing. Ignore them and their idiocy.

The simple answer to the question is that there is too much debt in the financial system. It has to be cleansed somehow, or at least diminished to a serviceable level, or the system collapses. Since either a repudiation or diminishing of the debt level goes against the "Debt" part of the "War Debt Distraction" model, it becomes clear that the system will not be saved. It will collapse or, as The Scrub says, it will end in financial death.

In the interim, the financial overlords will finish up sucking whatever they can out of the public before heading off to new adventures or, if justice serves, heading off to the gallows.

Don't hold your breath.

Steve Keen:

The Scrub sez:

Economists and politicians never see a crisis coming because their economic models cannot predict crashes and collapses. This is how you get idiotic posts like this one from Joe Wiesenthal at Business Insider claiming that the US is solving its debt crisis.

Well, yeah, if you mean it in the same sense that a gunshot to the head "solves" your foot odor problem.

Anyway...

A look at this short, but depressing, video shows you all you need to know about the debt problem facing the US:

The Scrub sez:

Note how Mr. Denninger posted the video in September 2009, and explicitly stated that Washington will "kick the can" as far as possible, but that he expects at most their actions bought us "two years".

Hmmm...Sept 2009 to Aug 2011??? That sounds like exactly what fucking happened!

In a country run by thoughtful, intelligent leaders, Mr. Denninger would be on a 1st Class flight to Farceland DC to begin preparing for his appointment as Senior Economic Adviser to the President. Meanwhile, Larry Summers would be getting a 3 a.m. SWAT-style takedown, complete with a dog-shooting and weed-planting...you know, to help prosecution.

In the US, though, Mr. Denninger is the grumpy old man on YouTube few in government even know exists. Meanwhile, Larry Summers can write op-eds where he trashes the US economy, which...well...think about how stupid this is. Mr. Summers writing that piece is the equivalent of you hiring a man to build a deck to your house, he takes a bulldozer to your house and razes it to the ground, you give him 6 months to fix the house, he actually turns the woodpile into a nuclear waste site, you give him another 6 months to fix it, he creates a black hole on your property from which nothing can escape, you ask him to stop working on the property, he demands a significant sum of money from you and your help in arranging a cushy high-paying and prestigious job, you do so just to get rid of the prick, then he goes public and starts complaining about how your house is a trash heap.

Incompetent losers like that fail forward in the US because there is a shitload of money to be made in betting on failure...and The Scrub would be derelict in his duty to inform you if he fails to mention this clip of Tim Geithner claiming just a few months ago that the US is in "no risk" of losing AAA status.

This is for you, Geithner, and all you do for the American "consumer":

The Scrub sez:

Will he lose his job over this? Of course not. That swine will likely be promoted. See the Larry Summers example.

***

Ever mindful of the plight of incompetent fuck-ups in government and business, The Scrub wants to send out a special dedication to all those government policymakers who will hopefully soon be out of a job, since that would indicate sanity and good government returning to this country.

It ain't you, baby, it's us:

We don't want you around no more. We don't need your constant fuck-ups and endless ham-handed temporary fixes that only make things infinitely worse. We'll get along just fine without you.

We've tried it your way for long enough. Time's up.

UPDATE: US HAS BEEN DOWNGRADED TO AA+ BY S & P

2011-08-05T16:46:00.014-04:00

As The Scrub recently predicted, the US is going to lose AAA rating this week.

PER REUTERS, US LOSES AAA RATING

The United States lost its top-notch AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor's on Friday, in a dramatic reversal of fortune for the world's largest economy.

S&P cut the long-term U.S. credit rating by one notch to AA-plus on concerns about growing budget deficits.

U.S. Treasuries, once undisputedly seen as the safest investment in the world, are now rated lower than bonds issued by countries such as the UK, Germany, France or Canada.

The outlook on the new U.S. credit rating is negative, S&P said in a statement, a sign that another downgrade is possible in the next 12 to 18 months. (Reporting by Walter Brandimarte; Editing by Jan Paschal)

Also,Zero Hedge is on the case:

United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' On Political Risks And Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative

We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed the 'A-1+' short-term rating.

We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative.

The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.

More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.

The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

More at the link.

The Scrub will issue commentary on this sometime this weekend. In the meantime, "POUR THE GAS, LIGHT THE MATCH, BURN":

Older sources:

CNN IS NOW REPORTING THAT S & P HAVE NOTIFIED OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND THE ADMINISTRATION IS BITCHING ABOUT THEIR NUMBERS BEING WRONG

ABC News reporting that US "expects" downgrade to AA+ or AA

CNBC reporting US is Bracing for Imminent Downgrade

Business Insider with a bit more information

MSN has a nice entry on the fallout from a debt downgrade

Also, for shits and giggles, here is a guy from Forbes who was totally wrong. The Scrub downloaded a .pdf of his entry in case he tries to send it down the Memory Hole.

How to Email The Scrub and Get an Answer That Doesn't Suck

2011-08-04T13:00:00.000-04:00

The Scrub has been getting a ton of emails lately. He likes answering these questions, but he needs to do something to keep from being overwhelmed. Thus, we need to set some guidelines on how your email should be structured.

1. Please make sure that you have used the search function and glanced at the topic headings before you fire off an email

Often, the Scrub will receive an email from a reader who has clearly not researched the site at all. The Scrub doesn't mind sending you an email with the phrase "Your question has already been answered on the site here" followed by a link to the post, but it kind of defeats the whole purpose of having a blog.

The Scrub is not Dr. Laura or Dave Ramsey. You don't automatically have to contact the Scrub for an answer to your question. The Google search bar is up there ^^^ at the top of the page.

If you can't find the answer to an obviously simple question after searching, take the 5 minutes or so to peruse the "Common Credit Questions" topic on the right side of this page. Over here ------>

If your question has not been answered, rest assured that the Scrub will do a post on it after you ask your question. In fact, this is where a lot of the site's content comes from.

2. Please make sure that you are using the correct phrases and terms

Debt collector v. original creditor, dispute v. validate, charge-off v. judgment, etc...the wrong term means that you could get a clearly wrong answer. The laws may change substantially depending on who you are and who is pursuing you.

If you are not sure of the correct term or phrase, state so in your email and describe your situation in detail. There is no harm in not knowing.

3. Please take the time to review your email for grammar mistakes

This is not an issue if you have a few minor errors... but if the Scrub cannot read your email and understand what you are asking about then it is probably going to be deemed spam and flushed.

Speaking of spam...

4. Please do not send the Scrub spam

Obviously.

How does your email get labeled as spam? Some examples:

a. Broken English

b. Asking to "guest blog"

c. Sending a bland "your site is teh awesomest" email accompanied with a link to a sample letter site

These things happen several times a day to The Scrub. Yes, you may actually be a human being with a legitimate question, but if you do these things, you run the risk of being spam-flushed.

5. Please do not ask the Scrub questions about credit-related issues for countries outside the United States

The Scrub knows less about the credit repair methods that would help an Indian, Australian, Brit, Frenchman, or Yemeni than you do.

6. If you decide to send out an email, please wait up to two complete days (48 hours) before sending a "Hello? Are you going to answer my question asshole?" email.

The Scrub does have a life outside the blog...and sometimes, the Scrub will need to research a question before giving an answer. Many of the emailed questions provide fodder for the site because the questions are so damned good. Patience will get you a better result than a quick-but-shitty answer.

7. If you need to send attachments to the Scrub for analysis/interpretation, make sure you redact any personally identifying information before sending them

The Scrub has not, and will never, sell or use your personal, private information for any purpose, good or evil, except to read it and tell you what he thinks of it. However, the Scrub cannot guarantee that his account will not get hacked or that your documents may end up exposed once the Federal Government decides to clamp down on the Scrub for helping people fight back against banksters and crooked politicians.

In other words, the Scrub isn't responsible if your documents end up in the hands of some nefarious entity hellbent on your financial or physical destruction. Be warned. Redact.

8. If the answer you receive from the Scrub is not helpful enough, feel free to respond and clarify your question further

Just make sure that your clarification is more than re-explaining your prior email in a manner that offers no substantive differentiation.

Make it clearer by adding further details. Or just write a lengthy original email. The Scrub will read your 25 paragraph question if you really need that much space to explain everything.

9. Ask the question you want answered

Obviously. The Scrub is not a mind reader.

10. Don't expect any miracles

The Scrub is not holding out any secret information that he will only impart to emailers or donating readers.

Most of the time, the Scrub's responses are simply analyzing the situation and offering a "what the Scrub would do in your situation" type of response. This can help clarify the situation, even if you end up not doing what the Scrub would do.

Also, there may not be any clear "right or wrong" answer, so do not be upset if you get an answer that gives you 3 or 4 options.

11. Feel free to update the Scrub on your situation

"This worked", "that didn't work", "what do I need to do now", "you suck and I hate you forever and die", etc...

***

This should help streamline the process somewhat, and give you folks an idea of what the Scrub can and cannot give you with respect to emailed Q and A.

As Promised, The Scrub's Commentary on the Debt Ceiling Compromise

2011-08-01T19:12:00.006-04:00

This commentary is a downer, and is not recommended to be read by anyone

-scrub

First we evaluate The Scrub's predictions on the debt ceiling compromise:

1. A US debt downgrade is going to happen soon

Grade: incomplete

Comments:

It will happen this week with at least one rating agency, so we'll revisit to award The Scrub that well-deserved "A"...or, if you're a dick, "AAA"

2. The US government will not outright default just yet

Grade: A

Comments:

Nailed it.

3. The US government will not shut down

Grade: A

Comments:

Nailed that too.

4. Obama will probably have to resort to "extraordinary means" to avoid default

Grade: D

Comments:

The Scrub predicted the need to use coin seigniorage or the less-legally-defensible 14th Amendment. The Scrub swung for the fences and missed. The only reason The Scrub did not get an "F" is because he used the weaselly word "probably". Legally, that is referred to as "covering your ass", but The Scrub is his own harshest critic.

***

The Scrub had intended on keeping his commentary to the bill itself, but has to deviate from the script for a minute or ten.

Because someone has to say it, The Scrub will.

In reference to this:

Gabrielle Giffords Returns to Congress for Debt Ceiling Vote:

ABC News’ Jonathan Karl (@JonKarl) reports: Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., returned to Congress tonight for the first time since being shot in the head in January, casting a vote on the compromise debt ceiling bill.

She entered the chamber to loud, sustained applause and a standing ovation by her House colleagues, who huddled around her to give hugs, kisses and handshakes.

Vice President Joe Biden, with a big smile on his face, walked to the House floor and said, "I came to see Gabby, that's why I'm here."

Her spokesman C.J. Karamargin told Tucson Weekly: “The vote taking place today is the single most important vote taken this year by the House of Representatives. The congresswoman insisted on participating,” she said.

“Congresswoman Giffords has been following this debate closely over the past two weeks. Like the vast majority of Americans, she is extremely disappointed at Washington’s inability to confront the debt ceiling issue in a timely and thoughtful manner.”

The Scrub sez:

Trotting out the survivor of a gunshot wound to the head and parading her around to distract from the odious bill you just passed has to be a new standard of political bullshit heretofore unseen in human history.

How so?

Giffords' presence is supposed to serve to distract you from the outcome of the vote. Notice how now the story is not only the vote, but also "the inspirational return of Giffords to Congress"?

Story:

Giffords felt so strongly about the need to pass this bill that she gathered the strength to reach the floor and cast a vote in favor of it...even though few outside DC even bothered to support the bill and everybody from Paul Krugman to Bill Kristol thought it sucked and wouldn't vote for it given the chance.

Oh come on, Scrub, nobody is saying that about Giffords. You're being paranoid.

ORLY?

Would you like a few hundred thousand more pictures for proof?

But Scrub! You're just being a prick!

Yes, totally, but what The Scrub says is still true.

Giffords' presence at the vote was not "all of a sudden decided" like the spokescretin implies, and as usual, Biden puts his foot in his mouth by claiming that he was there to see her return...which, obviously, could not be super-spontaneous if Biden hauled his ass up there to watch it.

It was planned all along, and to pretend otherwise is delusion.

This came down from the top with an order to cover it as part of the story, and the news organizations, as has been conclusively proven, carry water for the political elites and dutifully fell in line...just like the bucket full of excrement we were all served a few days after the 9/11 attacks. Anyone remember this?:

The Scrub forgot how much he hated Tom Daschle. Thanks, YouTube!

Yeah, six months later they were back to calling each other assholes and accusing anyone not in total agreement with them of being "America-haters" and terrorist-coddlers...

But the larger point is important here.

Any time Farceland decides to step up the volume of bullshit they are shoveling to the public, the worse the fuck-over is that is headed down the pike. After 9/11, The Scrub thought it could not get any worse.

It just did.

***

Were The Scrub a bit more mainstream and reliant on a steady income to present his opinions to the public, he would probably read a lot like Matt Taibbi (fewer cuss words, less rambling). Taibbi's latest on this entire escapade, Debt Ceiling Deal: The Democrats Take a Dive, is spot on and a must read:

The Democrats aren't failing to stand up to Republicans and failing to enact sensible reforms that benefit the middle class because they genuinely believe there's political hay to be made moving to the right. They're doing it because they do not represent any actual voters. I know I've said this before, but they are not a progressive political party, not even secretly, deep inside. They just play one on television.

For evidence, all you have to do is look at this latest fiasco.

The Republicans in this debt debate fought like wolves or alley thugs, biting and scratching and using blades and rocks and shards of glass and every weapon they could reach.

The Democrats, despite sitting in the White House, the most awesome repository of political power on the planet, didn't fight at all. They made a show of a tussle for a good long time -- as fixed fights go, you don't see many that last into the 11th and 12th rounds, like this one did -- but at the final hour, they let out a whimper and took a dive.

The Scrub sez:

This isn't really that hard to understand once you realize that the governing model of the US is now "War + Debt + Distraction" (WDD), as The Scrub so eloquently informed you of in his entry Your Rulers are Meeting to Determine Your Well-Being, Act Accordingly:

1. War

War serves to distract the public and maintain certain sectors of the economy. This is why the wars cannot stop. The end of a war is highly deflationary. In an economic environment such as ours, with enormous wealth destruction, the end of a war would further depress the economy and drive one of the booming industries (military supply and contracting) into downsizing.

This should give you all the background needed to avoid being surprised by headlines that read "secret US wars being waged by drones against (country X)". War is economic activity.

2. Debt

Debt serves to postpone recognition of the severity of the crisis. Debt is a means of financing a prior lifestyle no longer maintainable by your current economic condition...probably due to no fault of your own.

Debt also serves to push the public into serving the war machine. The war segment of the economy is one of the few that is actively hiring.

3. Distraction

Do you really give a shit about Anthony Weiner's weiner? If not, why is this story featured on all major news media outlets?

Because the press has an agenda...

The Scrub sez:

So now that we have the outline of the compromise made public, how does the WDD Model predict the future?

1. The future promised cuts, if they materialize at all, will not come from anything supportive of warmongering. Period.

2. The US will continue to accrue debt in order to borrow more time and attempt to push the collapse further back...although this isn't really a prediction since the US Treasury scheduled more debt issuance prior to the House vote... hmm...the US is so addicted to debt that they couldn't even wait for the damned bill to clear one chamber of the Congress before queuing up some new debt issuance.

The Scrub supposes this would be like predicting Bobby Brown is going to smoke some more crack.

Nobody could have predicted!

3. We can expect more brinkmanship as that experienced this weekend. Political posturing, finger-pointing, calls for unity and compromise...it is all there, waiting for us, to distract us from the truth...that it is all a show, that the results are already determined well beforehand, and that the flabby rich oligarchs, not content with figuratively screwing your children, are now literally screwing your children while you remain mesmerized by their shitty pop culture, clinging to your delusional beliefs that your meaningless vote means something or that "if only we had elected X, things would have been different".

***

For those of you who speak German, or the better-known Rammsteinese dialect, The Scrub thought this song was appropriate for the mood this evening:

The Scrub would have posted "Bück dich", which is far more appropriate, but the blog would have been labeled porn and shut down. Google at your own peril.

Update: It Passed the House

2011-08-01T18:51:00.003-04:00

Up next: the Senate, where passage is highly likely.

***The Scrub is authoring commentary, check back later for more

Debt Ceiling Compromise Update: Does Boehner Have the Votes?

2011-08-01T15:44:00.003-04:00

1. All from the Huffington Post"s real time stream...

Boehner says he has the votes to pass the debt ceiling agreement. However, the official tally is unknown as yet.

Also, the Dem leaders in the House are not whipping for votes, instead encouraging their members to "vote their conscience"...whatever the hell that means.

2. Whip count updates here to monitor how close the vote will be in the House.

3. Meanwhile, the Senate is widely expected to overcome the 60 vote threshold required to break a filibuster, which as we discussed last night is promised. Now, "widely expected" is not the same as "certainly", but the chances of failure in the Senate are much lower.

4. The failure of the modern American political structure is in full view for all to see as groups diametrically opposed politically as The Club for Growth and MoveOn.org come out in heavy opposition to the compromise bill:

Club for Growth, an organization that has funded primary challenges to Republican members of Congress, said it would highlight the vote in its annual ratings. The organization cited the lack of a requirement for a balanced budget agreement to be sent to the states for consideration and the possibility of a recommendation for tax increases from a bipartisan committee charged with identifying about $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by late this year.

The Club for Growth concluded the deal “simply doesn’t fix the country’s fiscal problems.”

...

MoveOn Executive Director Justin Ruben said the agreement “unfairly asks seniors and the middle class to bear the burden of the debt deal.”

The group, with five million members, provided grassroots support to Obama in the 2008 election.

The Scrub sez:

As stated several times recently, finding a constituency to support this thing is really difficult to do if you look anywhere outside of Farceland DC and Wall Street.

***

Thought this was appropriate for the times:

***More when we get it

Income Based Repayment for Student Loans: The Student Loan Bailout Nobody Knows About

2011-08-01T09:55:00.008-04:00

While The Scrub was researching the latest developments in the Debt Ceiling Fiasco, he came across a story in the Huffington Post about college students turning to prostitution for help paying off student loans:

The past few years have taken an especially brutal toll on the plans and expectations of 20-somethings. As unemployment rates tick steadily higher, starting salaries have plummeted. Meanwhile, according to Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, a professor of psychology at Clark University, about 85 percent of the class of 2011 will likely move back in with their parents during some period of their post-college years, compared with 40 percent a decade ago.

Besides moving back home, many 20-somethings are beginning their adult lives shouldering substantial amounts of student loan debt. According to Mark Kantrowitz, who publishes the financial aid websites Fastweb.com and Finaid.org, while the average 2011 graduate finished school with about $27,200 in debt, many are straining to pay off significantly greater loans.

Enter the sugar daddy, sugar baby phenomenon. This particular dynamic preceded the economic meltdown, of course. Rich guys well past their prime have been plunking down money for thousands of years in search of a tryst or something more with women half their age -- and women, willingly or not, have made themselves available. With the whole process going digital, women passing through a system of higher education that fosters indebtedness are using the anonymity of the web to sell their wares and pay down their college loans.

"Over the past few years, the number of college students using our site has exploded," says Brandon Wade, the 41-year-old founder of Seeking Arrangement. Of the site's approximately 800,000 members, Wade estimates that 35 percent are students. "College students are one of the biggest segments of our sugar babies and the numbers are growing all the time."

The Scrub sez:

What. The. Hell.

The Scrub is not necessarily interested in whatever it is consenting adults choose to do with their private lives, but this just seems...exploitative.

The Scrub also noticed that the Huffington Post did its due diligence in explaining to readers that turning to a life of prostitution to pay down student loan debt is unnecessary...

...

Oh wait, they didn't?

Color The Scrub unsurprised once again.

The Scrub told you about the Income Based Repayment program for students unable to make their monthly payments in April 2009, describing what it is and how it works.

Now, 3 years later, instead of blasting news of this program over the news 24/7, we get treated to stories like in the Huffington Post, attempting to serve their corporate and banking overlords by normalizing selective prostitution as an acceptable manner of dealing with student loan debt.

One more time, with feeling...

If you cannot make your government-backed federal student loan payments, you don't have to sell your body to flabby rich assholes. Keep it in your pants for 3 minutes and watch this video first:

The Bush Administration (no seriously, stop laughing, they actually did pass this) passed a law that allows you, yes you, to apply for a significant reduction in the amount you pay each month for your federal student loans. The program is described in detail at IBRinfo.org.

But Scrub! I probably don't qualify for this program because I earn too much!

Before you automatically assume you do not qualify, take 25 seconds out of your life and go to the Income Based Repayment Plan Free Online Calculator and let the people who know more about the program than you make that determination.

But Scrub! I contacted my lender and they gave me the runaround!

Yes, they did, because they hate this program and are doing their best to cover it up.

You will likely never receive any information from them about this program unless you call them and specifically ask them for it.

Even if you do, they will probably give you some bullshit about how "Income Contingent Repayment" or something else is better. They are lying. Demand the Income Based Repayment forms and get into the program.

But Scrub! I recently graduated from college and I have no job!

If your income is zero, and you apply for IBR, guess what? Your payment is zero per month, and that counts toward your 25 year timeframe. Thus, if you remain unemployed for 25 years, the entire balance of your loans is forgiven.

No shit???

No shit.

But Scrub! My loans are in default!

If your loans are in default, get them out now. You can't get into IBR with defaulted loans.

Check out these posts that The Scrub has written to help you figure out how to get out of default:

Trouble Paying Student Loans? What Can You Do?

Get Your Student Loans Rehabilitated

And note that you didn't even have to rub suntan lotion on The Scrub's back for this information.

You're welcome.

Debt Ceiling Deal Finalized, Except for the Voting Part

2011-07-31T23:32:00.004-04:00

What was that old saying about counting your chickens...?

As stated earlier, just because the leadership comes out in support of something doesn't necessarily mean it is going to pass. Of note, The Scrub found these stories three...worthy of your attention.

1. Nice to finally have some idea of what the fuck is in the deal. The White House released this fact sheet outlining the terms of the agreement:

A White House fact sheet distributed to reporters shortly after the president spoke laid down the specific elements of Sunday night's deal to raise the debt ceiling:

The president will be authorized to increase the debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion, eliminating the need for another increase until 2013.

The first tranche of cuts will come in at nearly $1 trillion. That includes savings of $350 billion from the Base Defense Budget, which will be trimmed based off a review of overall U.S. national security policy.

A bipartisan committee with enhanced procedural authority will be responsible for pinpointing $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction from both entitlements and tax reform, as well as other spending programs.

The committee will have to report out legislation by November 23, 2011.

Congress will be required to vote on Committee recommendations by December 23, 2011.

The trigger mechanism -- should the committee's recommendations not be acted upon -- will be mandatory spending cuts. Those cuts, which will begin in January 2013, will be split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries and "low-income programs" would be exempted from those cuts.

The fact sheet goes on to note that there is another enforcement mechanism that the president possesses.

"The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester [the trigger mechanism] would go into effect," the fact sheet reads. "These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts."

The Scrub sez:

Lots in there to piss off elements in both parties e.g. immediately taking on more debt, appointing committees to do something in the distant future, possibly cutting defense spending, possibly cutting entitlement programs, etc.

2. What about the House of Representatives? Nancy Pelosi May Not Support the Agreement:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was the most negative of the Congressional leaders who weighed in on the deal, and notably did not promise to support it.

"We all agree that our nation cannot default on our obligations and that we must honor our nation's commitments to our seniors, and our men and women in the military," she said in a statement. "I look forward to reviewing the legislation with my Caucus to see what level of support we can provide."

The Scrub sez:

Pelosi will probably fall in line, but does she have the power to whip the votes necessary on her end?

3. Will the plan have enough votes in the Senate to break a filibuster?

The Scrub sez:

Is there a path to 60 votes for this particular plan? If not, fireworks.

***

It is important to keep in mind that this experiment in legislative suicide may still result in widespread destruction and mayhem. There are any number of things that could go wrong with this proposal:

a. Convergence of the far left and far right elements to defeat the center bloc, assuming a center bloc exists;

b. Inability to meet a 60 vote threshold in the Senate;

c. A major politico, such as Nancy Pelosi, throwing weight in opposition

...for starters.

It is still too early for The Scrub to do a post-mortem on is predictions v. what actually transpired (those interested can see The Scrub's predictions here). No votes have been tallied, no word yet from ratings agencies on possibly acting to downgrade US debt paper, no jumbo platinum coins have been sighted in DC yet, etc. We won't know how things shake out until we see some votes counted and hear from places like Moody's.

***More when we get it

Update on Debt Ceiling Agreement

2011-07-31T21:41:00.003-04:00

Zero Hedge has all the juicy details

Note that this is only an agreement between the party leaders. We'll have to see if the rank and file fall into line. As posted earlier, there is an awful lot to piss off both parties in the proposal, everything from defense cuts to spending cuts.

***More when we get it

Deal to Raise Debt Ceiling Reached, The Scrub is Waiting for Details to Emerge

2011-07-31T20:46:00.002-04:00

Obama is on announcing a deal to raise the debt ceiling

Various News Agencies Reporting a Deal Imminent, But Does Anyone Actually Support It?

2011-07-31T15:51:00.004-04:00

1. Jake Tapper from ABC is reporting that the deal is almost done:

Sources from both parties tell ABC News that the major potential roadblock in deficit negotiations-- the triggers -- are now essentially agreed upon. The plan is for the House to vote on this tomorrow, assuming all goes according to plan.

The agreement looks like this: if the super-committee tasked with entitlement and tax reform fails to come up with $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction that passes Congress, the “neutron bomb” goes off, -- as one Democrat put it -- spending cuts that will hit the Pentagon budget most deeply, as well as Medicare providers (not beneficiaries) and other programs.

If the super-committee comes up with some deficit reduction but not $1.5 trillion, the triggers would make up the difference.

So it’s a minimum $2.7 trillion deficit reduction deal.

And the debt ceiling will be raised by $2.4 trillion in two tranches: $900 billion immediately, and the debt ceiling will be raised by an additional $1.5 trillion next year – either through passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment, which is unlikely, or with Congress voting its disapproval..

Two items still being negotiated:

1) The exact ratio of Pentagon to non-Pentagon cuts in the trigger – Democrats want 50% from the Pentagon, Republicans want less;

2) Democrats want to exempt programs for the poor from the cuts.

Also Democrats say –- if tax reform doesn’t happen through the super-committee, President Obama will veto any extension of Bush tax cuts when they come up at the end of 2012, further creating an incentive for the super-committee to act.

All sides hope this will be enough to convince the markets and ratings agencies that the federal government is serious about deficit reduction -– in order to avoid default.

Both sides will declare victory –- last week the biggest difference between the Boehner and Reid proposals was whether, as the GOP demanded, there would be another debt ceiling vote before the election. That wont happen in this deal.

But at the same time, Republicans got almost every single other item that they pushed in this process.

So now the policy has been negotiated, for the most part. But now comes the selling –- the politics. And this has been a political debate more than a policy one.

It’s still unclear if House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, can rally his troops to support this, though House GOPers say they should be able to get to 217 with some Democratic support.

There is less of a concern about the Senate.

Please note that this is still a fluid process, so even though this negotiation is close to final it is not done until the bill hits the floor of the House for a vote.

The Scrub sez:

Selling this deal to actual voters is impossible. Good thing we have gerrymandered districts to ensure an 85% to 95% re-election rate for incumbent politicians, and a golden parachute for the few unlucky saps who get voted out and have to take cushy jobs sitting on the board of directors for Fortune 500 companies earning six figure salaries for 5 days of "work" a year.

Ahhh, liberal Western Democracy, 21st Century style, where failure is rewarded almost as much as criminality.

Meanwhile, let us see how the proletariat are feeling about the imminent ream-job.

2. Erick Erickson at Redstate hates the proposal:

What we know about the pending deal is that the Democrats and Republicans are agreeing to a Deficit Commission. Despite the media spin — and the spin of some Republican sycophants — the deficit commission, which will be a super committee of the Congress, will have the power to come up with new tax revenue.

And if the Congress rejects the Commission’s demands for new tax revenue, there will be a trigger that cuts both medicare funding and defense funding.

Except, the defense funding cuts will be much more massive than the medicare cuts. And the GOP, in addition to seeing defense cut, would be hacking off seniors right before an election.

In other words, Republican Leaders are asking their members to accept tax increases or massive defense cuts and senior anger right before the election. Oh, and the medicare cuts technically wouldn’t come from beneficiaries, but from providers. Those same providers who’ll just stop taking medicare patients.

It’s not that the GOP got played so much as GOP leaders were collaborating on this. Boehner wanted a grand bargain and now he’s going to get it along with tax increases.

The Scrub sez:

So if the Republican base hates this "compromise", then the Democrats must love it right?

3. MoveOn hates the deal too:

Channeling the obvious anger among progressives over the impending debt ceiling deal, Moveon.org, the five million strong progressive advocacy group, came out with a statement Sunday morning declaring that the state of negotiations have gone from "bad to worse."

“The reason Republicans want a “Super Congress," especially one that triggers automatic cuts if it fails to reach agreement, is because it would let them slash Medicare and other vital services with no accountability," said MoveOn Executive Director Justin Ruben. "It is extremely troubling that it now appears that some Democrats are willing to give in to Republican demands to make this already disastrous plan worse for working families."

“As the clock ticks towards Tuesday’s deadline, MoveOn’s 5 million members, along with the vast majority of Americans, will not stand for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefit cuts -- not now, and not six months from now. We can not and should not ask seniors and the middle class to bear the burden of the debt deal. We urge the White House and all in Congress to keep negotiating for a deal that protects Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid and asks millionaires to pay their fair share -- not a deal that creates a back-door way to gut these vital programs.”

The Scrub sez:

So if the bases of both parties hate the proposed "grand compromise", then where is the constituency to ensure that it gets passed?

Oh right...

4. Banksters Demand an Agreement:

Chief executives from the nation's largest financial firms Thursday pressured the White House and Congress to reach a deal on the debt ceiling and deficit reduction, saying the consequences of inaction ''would be very grave.''

JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon, Goldman Sachs' Lloyd Blankfein and Bank of America's Brian Moynihan, among others, said in a letter that an agreement needs to be reached this week.

"A default on our nation's obligations, or a downgrade of America's credit rating, would be a tremendous blow to business and investor confidence -- raising interest rates for everyone who borrows, undermining the value of the dollar, and roiling stock and bond markets -- and, therefore, dramatically worsening our nation's already difficult economic circumstances,'' the letter said.

The letter from the chief executives come as Congress and the White House struggle to broker a deal to raise the country's $14.3 trillion debt cap before Aug. 2 when the U.S. Treasury will no longer be able to borrow funds to pay all of its bills.

That has raised the specter of default and businesses from the big banks to manufacturers are alarmed by the potential fallout.

Citigroup's Vikram Pandit, Metlife Inc's Steven Kandarian and Morgan Stanley's James Gorman were also among the chief executives who signed the letter.

The Scrub sez:

So these crooks support it. Thus, it is going to get done.

***

Conceptually, how is this any different from the doom-mongering from September 2008? You know, where Hank Paulson held the country hostage and extorted a $700 billion blank check that he used to bail out his financial overlords at the expense of the US public?

Here, we have the following TARP comparisons:

1. The same group of criminal fucks on Wall Street making demands to protect their investments;

2. The same "ruling class" of political demagogues selling out to the highest bidders, who just so happen to be the people who own and run the banks;

3. A proposed deal that virtually no human outside of DC or Wall Street supports;

4. No substantive change in governance;

5. No substantive change in outcomes.

The Scrub has been saying for yeas that the US political system is dying a slow-motion death. September 2008 was when the illness went terminal. The next few months may see the last breaths of that leviathan we call Uncle Sam.

The Scrub has harped about the premise of a book called The Nine Nations of North America" for years now. We are finally seeing the complex, incoherent, and inherently contradictory US political system collapse upon itself. What will remain in the aftermath will resemble the regional governments discussed in that book.

This is not without precedent. Empires typically collapse into smaller, easier to govern pieces. Most recently, the USSR did so. Many of the same problems experienced by large empires are being experienced by US citizens now:

1. Increasing distrust of central authority;

2. Lack of popular consent in governing nationally;

3. Inability of national government to solve important issues;

4. Interference with local decision-making that lacks popular consent

...among others.

***More when we get it

Still No Deal, Just the 'Outline" of the "Contours" of a Deal

2011-07-31T11:08:00.002-04:00

Crunch time.

1. Per Yahoo News, McConnell says debt deal very close:

Senate Majority Leader Mitchell McConnell said he was nearing a recommendation of the tentative agreement to Republicans in the upper chamber. It would, he said, likely extend U.S. borrowing authority, which expires on Tuesday, beyond the 2012 presidential and congressional elections, a fundamental demand of President Barack Obama.

The Scrub sez:

No word yet on whether this proposal will pass muster in the lower chamber.

2. Zero Hedge reports that Moody's may not decide to downgrade the US after all:

And there you have it. Mark Zandi, better known for predicting at least 18 occurrences of a US recovery in the past 4 quarters, and being as wrong on the shape of the US growth curve as everyone else on Wall Street (although being Moody's head economist that is a perfectly normal track record), just told CNN's State of the Union that the deal is substantive enough to where Moody's will not move to downgrade the US' AAA rating. Naturally, the fact that this is merely another massive can kicking exercise which will see the US debt ceiling raised by $3 trillion with actual cumulative cuts of about $100 billion tops by November 2012 at which point yet another debt ceiling hike will have to be planned is irrelevant. All that matters is to get the S&P back to the year's highs, 120% debt/GDP (same as Greece) be damned.

The Scrub sez:

Don't buy that for a second. The US is getting downgraded to AA next week. Book it.

***Gotta run some errands this morning, will post more when The Scrub returns

No Debt Deal Yet, Just Inherently Confusing and Self-Contradicting Reports

2011-07-31T00:07:00.004-04:00

No need to panic just yet. No deal means the last heaving convulsions of the frail and wasting corpse of America get fainter as we approach the finish line.

1. ABC is reporting that a deal has been struck:

ABC News has learned that Republicans and the White House have struck a tentative deal to raise the debt ceiling before the Aug. 2 deadline. It's not done yet, but here is the framework of the tentative deal they have worked out, according to a source familiar with the negotiations:

-Debt ceiling increase of up to $2.8 trillion

-Spending cuts of roughly $1 trillion

-Vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment

-Special committee to recommend cuts of $1.8 trillion (or whatever it takes to add up to the total of the debt ceiling increase)

-Committee must make recommendations before Thanksgiving recess

-If Congress does not approve those cuts by late December, automatic across-the-board cuts go into effect, including cuts to Defense and Medicare.

The Scrub sez:

Well, that looks like a deal, and The Scrub sa-

ABC is reporting that no deal has been struck in the same report The Scrub just linked to where they said a deal had been struck:

A senior White House aide pushed back against the idea that a deal was struck.

"Talks continue, but there is no deal to report," the aide said.

The Scrub sez:

Uh, okay then, nothing happened yet. But what about that vote that was suppo-

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV., postponed a cloture vote on his debt plan, originally expected to happen at 1 a.m. Sunday and moved the vote to 1 p.m. on Sunday.

The Scrub sez:

Oh, well, that particular ABC report was helpful.

2. Nancy Pelosi privately backs using the 14th Amendment to solve the debt ceiling impasse:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) may not be pushing the issue publicly, but in private she "clearly" supports President Barack Obama using the Constitution to raise the debt ceiling as a last resort, according to one Democratic member of Congress.

"Nancy clearly wants it," said the lawmaker, who requested anonymity. "Publicly? No. Privately? She thinks the president should do it. Period."

The Scrub sez:

That way lies political peril. Specifically, impeachment proceedings.

Speaking of...

3. Lawrence Tribe details why the 14th Amendment cannot be used to raise the debt ceiling:

The Supreme Court has addressed the public debt clause only once, in 1935, in the case of Perry v. United States. The court observed only that the clause confirmed the “fundamental principle” that Congress may not “alter or destroy” debts already incurred.

Some have argued that this principle prohibits any government action that “jeopardizes” the validity of the public debt. By increasing the risk of default, they contend, any debt ceiling automatically violates the public debt clause.

This argument goes too far. It would mean that any budget deficit, tax cut or spending increase could be attacked on constitutional grounds, because each of those actions slightly increases the probability of default. Moreover, the argument is self-defeating. If it were correct, the absence of a debt ceiling could likewise be attacked as unconstitutional — after all, the greater the nation’s debt, the greater the difficulty of repaying it, and the higher the probability of default.

The Scrub sez:

All the legal arguments go out the window, though, if the entire system feels threatened. We may be at that point in less than 48 hours. If that is so, expect petty concerns like "legality" and "dignity" to disappear...assuming they still garner some modicum of adherence to in that festering cesspool we call DC.

On that cheery note, The Scrub is off to bed. The Scrub will resume live-blogging for tomorrow's last 100 meter stretch...just before the meatwagon is called in to haul America's bloated, mangled carcass of the field.

Democans, Republicrats Disagree on Whether They Are Close to Agreeing on a Debt Ceiling Deal

2011-07-30T19:20:00.002-04:00

CNN reports that Republicans and Democrats are unable to agree on whether they are close to a deal:

Top congressional Democrats and Republicans disagreed Saturday over whether any progress was being made on a deal to raise the nation's debt ceiling and avoid a potentially catastrophic default.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, held a 4 p.m. ET afternoon press conference in which they both said a deal was close. Two hours later, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, asserted the claims of his Republican counterparts were simply "not true."

The Republicans are holding "meaningless press conferences" and "refuse to negotiate in good faith," Reid said. "The process has not been moved forward during this day."

"I'm more optimistic than my friend the majority leader," McConnell replied. "I think we've got a chance of getting there."

The Scrub sez:

Seems appropriate:

Next on the agenda for Congress:

Meaningless debate followed by a meaningless vote at around 1 am later on tonight.

In the meantime, stay tuned to The Scrub's near-live-blogging real time news hyper-event spectacular extravaganza on steroids

***More as we get it

Moody's Prepares to Downgrade the US, Mexican Standoff Over Competing Plans May Force Dropping the 14th Amendment Bomb

2011-07-30T13:51:00.006-04:00

The Scrub was going to use a scene from Reservoir Dogs, but thought this was more appropriate.

We're still here blogging the waning days of Pax Americana in real time.

Please note that The Scrub is still certain that some agreement will be reached ~~to raise the debt ceiling~~ to avoid default while imposing harsh austerity measures on the US public, but that doesn't mean we have to ignore all the theatrics.

1. Big update from Moody's in the ever-present Friday Night News Dump we've all grown accustomed to over the years:

The "limited magnitude" of both debt plans put forward by congressional leaders would not put the nation's AAA credit rating back on solid footing, Moody's Investors Service announced Friday.

"Reductions of the magnitude now being proposed, if adopted, would likely lead Moody's to adopt a negative outlook on the AAA rating," the credit rating agency said in a new report. "The chances of a significant improvement in the long-term credit profile of the government coming from deficit reductions of the magnitude proposed in either plan are not high."

It added that "prolonged debt ceiling deliberations" have increased the odds of a downgrade, but that the firm is still confident policymakers will avoid a default.

The Scrub sez:

In other words, unless some miraculous agreement happens, despite any evidence to the contrary that such is possible, the decision has already been made. The US is getting downgraded next week.

So what happens when the US is downgraded? Zero Hedge has all you need to know:

Alas, just like with Lehman, nobody really has any idea what will happen to capital markets once the Poor Standards or Moody's headline of a AA cut hits the tape: one thing is certain - there are trillions in US invested money market funds, structured finance debt and munis that have rating mandates and demand a super secure (AAA) threshold, and especially an A-1+ short-term rating. Should there be a massive flow out of these securities and into other asset classes, the outcome is absolutely unpredictable. More importantly, Citi touches on a topic that has not seen prominent mention anywhere else: namely the acceleration of the GSEs status from conservatorship to receivership should there be no prompt resolution on the debt ceiling. For agency paper holders this may be a topic that merits much more diligence.

The Scrub sez:

To summarize, nobody knows for sure, but it is probably going to be bad.

2. Both chambers of Congress were busy killing proposals passed by the other chamber, rather than, you know, proposing things that would stand a chance of working.

The Guardian:

Late on Friday night the Republican-controlled House finally approved a bill to raise the debt ceiling in return for billions of dollars in spending cuts, but the Democratic Senate quickly rejected it.

The Scrub sez:

And Reid's bill? The Washington Post:

With just three days to go before Congress’s deadline to raise the debt ceiling and avoid sending the country into default, leaders continued to struggle Saturday to work out a bipartisan deal that can pass both chambers and be signed into law by President Obama.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) delivered a letter Saturday afternoon to Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), signed by 43 Republicans, declaring that Reid’s debt-limit legislation was unacceptable.

Needing 60 votes to clear a filibuster hurdle, Reid’s current draft is assured of failure in a 1 a.m. vote Sunday. McConnell demanded that President Obama re-engage in negotiations. “It isn’t going to pass,” McConnell said Saturday in a floor speech. “Let’s get talking to the administration.”

Obama, meanwhile, repeated his call that Republicans must compromise and accept a “bipartisan” deal if the nation is to avoid its first-ever default.

The Scrub sez:

lol

3. It appears that the stage may be set for Obama to act alone and invoke the 14th Amendment:

So, if the President wishes not to run afoul of Clinton v. New York, his only remaining choice would be to claim the Constitutional power to act in order to forestall a national catastrophe and choose to raise the debt ceiling on his own.

I can hear some of you wondering who gets to decide what is and what is not a catastrophe? You’re thinking that just because Obama says it is a catastrophe doesn’t mean it actually is a disaster. Indeed, according to Rep. Michele Bachmann and others, nothing bad is going to happen if we default come Tuesday night.

However, there are enough economists out there, not to mention a majority of the nation if the polls are to be believed, to support the notion that default would, indeed, be catastrophic. Thus, the President would likely not be nailed for improperly deeming the situation a catastrophic event just to grab some Constitutional power away from Congress.

Where Obama is more likely to get into trouble is dealing with the question of whether or not a unilateral raising of the debt ceiling is Constitutional- catastrophe or not.

The Scrub sez:

and the author goes on to discuss the political fallout...

So what happens?

Probably nothing happens.

While there is a chance that a loud cry will arise in the House of Representatives calling for the impeachment of the President for violating the Constitution, a cry that might lead to a vote of impeachment in that body, the Senate will never convict as a 2/3 vote is required to do so and there aren’t enough Republicans to make that happen.

Either way, if the Congress fails to reach an agreement on raising the debt ceiling that the President is willing to sign, the President will find himself in the position of having to choose between two actions, each presenting difficult questions of Constitutionality.

The Scrub sez:

Clinton redux.

Also, Jack Balkin gives his take on coin seigniorage:

The "jumbo coin" (what he calls the "coin seigniorage option- Scrub) and "exploding option" strategies work because modern central banks don't have to print bills or float debt to create new money; they just add money to their customers' checking accounts.

The government has not discussed either option publicly. There are three reasons for this. First, there may be other legal obstacles to using these options that we don't know about. Second, because these devices could be used over and over again, they might scare investors and be politically unacceptable. Third, the president's political strategy has been to obtain a congressional deal lowering the deficit, and these solutions would take all the pressure off Congress.

However, that calculation could change if the president believes that Congress is simply unable to pass anything, a conclusion he has not yet reached.

The Scrub sez:

Read the last sentence again, and compare it to the political fallout facing Obama if he chooses to invoke the 14th Amendment. He would likely be impeached by the Republican-controlled House, and likely acquitted in the Senate trial.

In other words, Clinton redux.

Oh wait, The Scrub already said that.

Well, it is true. Clinton redux.

That is why The Scrub is predicting the use of coin seigniorage as the weirdest-but-least-illegal means of avoiding default.

***More as we get it.

The US Treasury Runs Out of Cash in About Three Days

2011-07-29T18:12:00.004-04:00

The debt ceiling impasse is getting super-crazy. As The Scrub predicted, we are nearing the end of the line for the US' AAA credit rating...and rightfully so.

But now, word comes from Zero Hedge that the US treasury is about 3 days away from running out of cash:

As of last night, the US Treasury had just $51.3 billion in Federal Resere cash, and furthermore, Tim Geithner let the $5 billion in residual CMBs under the Fed's Supplementary Financing Program mature without rolling. In other words, the Treasury just burned $15 billion, or $20 billion when accounting for the CMB roll off, overnight. At this burn rate there is precisely 3 days or so of cash, although this naturally does not include the bulk payment due to SSTN discussed previously. It is now officially time to panic, although those who so wish, can put their money in not just Apple ($76.2 billion), but GE ($136.4 billion) and Microsoft ($62.4 billion) all of which have more cash than Tim Geithner. Of course, as Gartman put it, in three days everyone will have more cash than the US Treasury. Incidentally, someone may wish to inform the irrelevant data chasers that a far better comparison is that of the US Treasury not to companies that have X cash, but to those that have a $15 billion cash burn per day.

Maybe we should rename it "The Financial Suicide of America"?

Interestingly enough, note that Apple, GE and Microsoft have more cash on hand than the US Treasury. But yeah, also be aware that in about three days The Scrub will have more money than the US Treasury...and The Scrub is not exactly what you would consider uber-wealthy.

Normally, The Scrub would end this post with an "Enjoy your weekend" sign off accompanied by some hipster video clip. Not this weekend though. We're going to blog the financial demise of the US in real time. Follow along at home,enjoy the show and watch the politicos scream at each other with enough flopsweat to drown a busload of kittens:

The Scrub's Take on the US Default and Debt Downgrade Theatrics

2011-07-28T10:20:00.006-04:00

The Scrub hopes that everyone is enjoying the debt ceiling drama unfolding in Farceland, DC.

As readers to the site already know, The Scrub predicted in May what was going to happen to the US debt ceiling debate with unsurprising accuracy. To wit:

This is an obvious political setup by slimebag (The Scrub's nickname for Timmy Geithner) and his mendacious band of thieves (The Scrub's accurate nickname for the US Department of Treasury and the Federal Reserve Banking System) in charge of the economy. Around June 30th, we will be treated to "sudden, unexpected issues that have forced US Treasury to accelerate the official default date to July 15, 2011". There will be breathless media commentary by the shills that populate that medium about how both sides need to "come together and solve this issue".

There will be late night meetings at the White House, purely for show, trying to "hammer out an agreement to increase the debt ceiling".

And then, just in the nick of time, a compromise solution will be reached that cuts more governmental services for the poor and elderly, increases the US credit limit by a few trillion (just enough to cover the bill until next election cycle), and authorizes some sort of military campaign in yet another idiotic attempt at empire maintenance.

The only thing the Scrub swung and missed on was the "date acceleration" thing.

Anyway, if you are following along at home, you will notice that we are nearing the end of the "hammer out an agreement" phase and entering the "just in the nick of time" phase. Prepare for back-breaking austerity measures, some sort of deal to give the Wall Street Banksters the ability to gamble with Social Security funds, and more warmongering to distract the public.

And for those of you still wondering whether Obama is going to save you from economic calamity, give up hope. The string of Obama's broken promises increases by the day. After a while, you have to face the fact that either:

a. He just isn't cut out for the job, or

b. He never intended to keep his promises.

The sad part is that the results are the same in either instance. Incompetence can be mistaken for malfeasance and vice versa.

But Scrub! I am angry at the whole situation! What can I do to express my frustration?

Well, the Scrub can give you a "Washington-approved" answer and tell you to "write your Congressman and express your concerns", or the Scrub can give you information that makes you dangerous to the system...

Hmmm...that sounds familiar...

Oh yeah, the Scrub already gave you that information in his primer on sticking it to Washington in which he wrote the following on November 15, 2009:

The financial system is being rigged to extract as much money from you as possible before the dollar index tanks and your wealth is inflated away. That is why you're reading about credit card companies jacking your interest rates up to 30%, banks are not lending, bailouts by the billion, bankster bonuses, etc. If you want happiness and puppy dogs, then you've been reading the wrong site anyway. If you don't want to end up caught offguard when gas spikes to $8 a gallon next summer, read on.

Except for gas prices spiking "only" to over $4.00 per gallon, the All Purpose Guide to Economic Warfare is every bit as relevant today as it was when written.

How relevant?

Well, in that piece, the Scrub mentions that item number 1 on the agenda is to opt out of the US Federal Wealth Destruction and Confiscation Scheme, also known as the Private Banking Cartel's Fiat Money System. You can do that by trading in your paper dollars for precious metals.

Spot price for gold the day that post went live was around $1,120.00 (currently offered at $1608.10). Spot price for silver that day was about $17.75 (currently offered at $39.73).

In the meantime, the US Dollar Index was at around 76 that day. It spiked up to around 88 in June 2010, but is now back in the doldrums at 74 today.

That should be all the evidence you need that the preferred method of handling the debt crisis is to debase the currency, impose more debt on you, raise your taxes, cut the services provided to you in exchange for those taxes, and let the crooks at the tippy-top of the wealth pyramid run the cash register drawer.

***

To close out this post, keep these thoughts in your mind as you watch the drama unfold over the debt ceiling.

1. A US debt downgrade is going to happen soon

A downgrade has not happened yet only because of the desire by the international banking cartels to keep their multi-generational wealth destruction and confiscation scheme going a bit longer. But US governmental dysfunction is threatening a smooth method of extraction and destruction.

In fact, further US governmental dysfunction will be used in the future to enforce even harsher austerity measures than what is coming for you in the next month. The debt downgrade will be the official warning to the rest of the criminal banksters that they need to finish up because they'll be pulling the plug shortly.

2. The US government will not outright default just yet

It is so much easier to slowly default by printing money and inflating away value over time. See the precious metals prices posted earlier for more proof of that.

3. The US government will not shut down

Unlike the 1990's, there is a real sense that things could fall apart. Power abhors a vacuum.

4. Obama will probably have to resort to "extraordinary means" to avoid default

All the talk is of the so-called constitutional option to raise the debt ceiling by invoking the 14th Amendment is fraught with political peril. Doing so could result in Obama's impeachment, since the executive branch is simply not authorized to do so no matter how loosely you try to interpret the language.

The Scrub expects the Obama administration to resort to something called coin seigniorage...which is less likely to result in impeachment proceedings:

Congress has provided the authority, in legislation passed in 1996, for the US Mint to create platinum bullion or proof platinum coins with arbitrary fiat face value having no relationship to the value of the platinum used in these coins. The US code also provides for the Treasury to periodically “sweep” the Mint’s account at the Federal Reserve Bank for profits earned from coin seigniorage. These profits are then booked as miscellaneous receipts (revenue) to the Treasury and go into the Treasury General Account, narrowing the revenue gap between spending and tax revenues. Platinum coins with huge face values e.g. $2 Trillion, could close the revenue gap entirely, and technically end deficit spending, while still retaining the gap between tax revenues and spending.

Yes, that sounds crazy and complicated. Yes, it sounds no different from just firing up the printing press and running off some more dollars. But it may be the easiest route politically.

Okay Scrub! If you think you're so damned awesome, what would YOUR plan be?

Thanks for asking.

The Federal Reserve holds over $1.5 trillion in US treasuries". Ever since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 (and the story of how the fed was created is interesting, to say the least), it has been slowly, but meticulously, destroying the value of a dollar by inflation:

Source: http://www.aier.org/research/briefs/1826-the-long-goodbye-the-declining-purchasing-power-of-the-dollar

Were the Scrub granted dictatorial powers, he would cancel the treasuries owned by the Fed.

The Scrub would also stop warmongering, but that is a whole different ball of wax from what we normally discuss on the site. Just know that the price tag for warmongering is around a trillion dollars these days, and the president overseeing all of this warmongering won the Nobel Peace Prize a few years ago.

Appropriate song to play us out:

Act accordingly.

Here, The Scrub Destroys the New York Times' Fluff Piece on Max Drucker and Social Intelligence Corporation

2011-07-21T18:53:00.006-04:00

Today, the Scrub woke up and logged in to babysit his blog. Surprisingly, at around noon today the site had over 3 times the normal traffic for a lazy summer weekday*.

Obviously, something was up. Checked the site stats, found out that the source of most of the traffic was a story from the New York Times.

Oh shit. Had the Scrub actually been featured in the "Paper of Record"?

Tee hee hee.

No.

Above: Weather report on the day the Scrub gets his Times bio published, courtesy of homagetochyort.com

Instead, the Scrub was referred to a story about Social Intelligence Corporation being featured in the New York Times.

Oh shit! That Drucker guy again?

Yes, the Drucker guy again.

Great.

Had the Scrub been mentioned as a source for the story?

No.

Actually, the traffic was flowing from the comment section. It was directed to these posts:

What is Social Intelligence Corporation, and Why is it so Bad?

Intelligence Report on Max Drucker, CEO of Social intelligence Corporation

20 Uncomfortable Questions for Max Drucker, CEO of Social Intelligence Corporation

Specifically, the Scrub went through the comment section and surmised that a lot of the Times' readers were pissed off at a number of things...Social Intelligence Corporation sucks, Big Brother is here, shit like that. However, many readers were upset that the reporter lobbed a bunch of softballs at Mr. Max "Fruckermax" Drucker, CEO of that treacherous company.

Apparently, some folks decided to Google his ass, stumbled across the Scrub's 3 part epic on the guy, and decided to spread the word on their own.

What can the Scrub say? He knows his Search Engine Optimization tactics. This site is on the front page of Google for all sorts of "Fuckertax"-related queries, including being ranked above his personal Facebook page when you Google his own damned name...

Hellz yeah.

Anyway, there isn't anything in the Times story worth reading that you couldn't already get from elsewhere. However, the Scrub thought he would explore precisely why the Times story sucked so much ass by extrapolating the reporter's "hard hitting" questions from the answers provided.

This should serve as a good lesson in precisely why the public is so upset with the propagandists employed by news organizations like the Times.

So here it is, the Paper of Record's "hard-hitting" expose on Max Drucker, CEO of Social Intelligence Corporation:

Question #1: What does your company do?

Gleaned from the generic bullshit answer about what his company looks for in compiling reports.

Tough question there, pardner.

Question #2: Do you look for any positive stuff too?

The Times made it a point to mention that Social Intelligence also includes positive things in their reports, like awards and honors...you know, for when they aren't accusing you of being a Ku Klux Klan member for thinking you shouldn't have to "press 1 for English" when you call an American corporation for customer assistance.

This is, quite obviously, a propaganda tactic that makes SIC look like something other than a privately owned (to the best of our knowledge) spying entity that weighs your personal beliefs, expressions and opinions against your employment prospects.

As a commenter on the Times stated, here paraphrased, "If Drucker has to have the Times do a fluff piece on what his company does, he probably shouldn't be doing it".

The Scrub agrees.

Question #3: Can you give examples of the type of negative information you have found in conducting searches thus far?

Obvious question when you consider the examples he gives in the interview. For example, he specifically mentions "anti-Semitism" in one case.

However, when you consider that Mr. Drucker is Jewish and a supporter of the state of Israel, with a Jewish mother who happens to be a lesbian Rabbi, you have to question just how "anti-Semitic" the individual's opinions were. Did the individual actually express anti-Semitic opinions, or were the individual's opinions just critical of something that "Druckerbrax" did not personally approve of?

You see, the problem isn't what this guy finds. The problem is that there is nobody overseeing what this guy does or questioning why this particular guy should have that much authority over anything beyond whatever the hell his Political Science degree prepared him for.

Question #4: What does your company hope to achieve?

Explicitly states his goal is to help companies research applicants without opening themselves up to lawsuits. Laughably claims that his company is all about "protecting the privacy of job applicants".

Conveniently leaves out the part where he compiles a shitload of personal data on people and plans to "accidentally" get hacked like ChoicePoint in a few years...you know, ChoicePoint, the folks that bought his company Steel Card a few years back.

Book it. If you know anything at all about how businesses structure themselves to avoid liability, then you can see that this type of shit is going on with a significant chunk of these data breaches. Most of these entities cannot disclose this information willingly, but they sure do avoid a shit-ton of liability when they "accidentally" get hacked and have their databases "compromised".

How convenient.

Question #5: What types of materials get people in the most trouble?

Explicitly answers the question.

The reporter doesn't bother to press him any further...you know, asking probing questions like "how do you ensure that you have the right person" or "will this information be used against this person indefinitely".

Asking those questions would come dangerously close to being journalism.

Question #6: What information is protected from your searches?

Answers it by talking about, among other things, how sites like Facebook really aren't that great at protecting information.

So yeah, it is mostly your fault for not protecting your personal information you wish to keep private, but when it isn't your fault, it is Facebook's fault.

Maybe, the Scrub hopes, Mark Zuckerberg will roll over one day, with an enormous wad of cash in his pocket, and squish Mr. Drucker like a bug in a courtroom.

Some day...

***

That's pretty much it. The thrust of the article is, essentially, "this is the wave of the future, so get fucking used to it".

For comparison, actual bouts of journalism sound less like "suck it up, losers" and more like "what gives you the right to do this type of thing".

So yeah, wouldn't you like to see this guy squirm trying to answer the Scrub's 20 Uncomfortable Questions for Max Drucker?

Heh, not bloody likely, but thankfully normal people (not just the gigantic, bearded, talking Eagles of the world) are taking notice of just how treacherous this guy's company is.

***

The Scrub just has one question:

Why does anybody bother to read the New York Times?

Over a year ago, the Scrub posted the following process employed by the Times:

The New York Times, however, ALWAYS does this type of shit. Here is their process:

1. Ignore major stories

2. Cite official sources to offer a false narrative to combat the emergence of the major story that was originally being ignored.

3. Push the false narrative until the horrible shit in the major story is beyond the point of being stopped

4. Come out with explosive stories "breaking" the narrative they originally ignored (well beyond the point capable of reversing the tide)

5. Offer apologies for screwing up their handling of the original story and have braindead columnists rationalize their involvement

Seriously, try that out with ANY major news story of the last 30 years. The Times is a joke, whether they are cheerleading war, covering for lying politicians, or ignoring corporate criminality/shittiness.

From New York Times Wakes Up, Finds Out About TALX, Bothers to Inform You About It

So we're between numbers 2 and 3 right now. The sad part is that, with each passing day, we get closer and closer to that moron Thomas Friedman opining on this issue by comparing it to something that came to him while he was taking a dump in Caracas.

No wait...

Actually, the Scrub has two questions...the previous one, and the following...

After watching this video, why the hell does anybody watch any mainstream news source?

You don't have to be a fan of The Young Turks to see that Mr. Uygur is telling the truth. They ARE the establishment, and in case you guys haven't noticed, the elites are looting the country. So unless they're going on TV to turn themselves in for any one of the tens of thousands of criminal infractions they have committed in recent years, why should any of you care what they think about anything?

So yeah, act accordingly.
___________________________________

*Yes, the Scrub woke up at noon today. Don't judge him!

What You Can Do If You Have Been Victimized by Identity Theft

2011-07-15T12:00:00.003-04:00

The Scrub just wanted to throw you folks a "how to" with respect to unwinding identity theft's various headaches. He had two choices:

Choice 1

Write an epic guide on how to handle identity theft. Fill it with curse words and third-person references so convoluted that it would require complex sentence diagrams just to decipher...which only three people would bother to do because everyone else is out having fun this weekend.

Choice 2

Link to this post, make some stupid jokes afterwards, and spend the weekend in detox:

What to do if someone steals your identity.

If you're bored with the information provided in the link, punch it up with some curse words. Take the text from there and add the word "fuckin'" every fourth word or so. For example:

What’s happening? You could fuckin' be the victim of fuckin' identity theft, where a fuckin' imposter is using your fuckin' personal information to obtain fuckin' credit.

(sigh)

If you don't like that joke, the Scrub could always make one about iambic pentameter.

(sigh)

Okay, how about this one?

Have a good weekend legions.

CitiMortgage is Getting the Hell Sued Out of Them for Violating the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), Pile On!

2011-07-13T12:00:00.010-04:00

The Scrub has posted about the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act previously...you know, one of those laws that benefits active duty military that nobody bothers to tell the active duty military about.

Anyway, the Scrub thought he would bring to your attention some SCRA-related news. According to, who else, The Consumerist:

An Iraq War veteran has filed a potential class-action lawsuit against CitiGroup's CitiMortgage division, alleging that the lender violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by foreclosing on his home and that of "thousands" of other active-duty soldiers.

Source: Lawsuit Alleges Citi Illegally Foreclosed On Thousands Of Soldiers' Homes

Wait, you mean Citi really doesn't care about troops and Citi just wants you to pay attention to this bullshit while they quietly break Federal law to foreclose on vets in violation of the SCRA?

No way! Gee, who could have possibly predicted that a major bank would be filled with assholes and criminals?

Anyway, the Scrub thought he would go one step better and give you something useful for a change. Contact Bursor and Fisher to see about joining their class action suit if:

1. You were active duty at any time from December 19, 2003 to present (July 12, 2011)

and

2. You received notice of foreclosure from CitiMortgage

Joining a class action probably won't get you much money, but it is a great way to see to it that those who have screwed you over are severely punished for their atrocities.

And isn't that really all we have left in America? Sure, you lost your house, but you might get a $20 gift card out of it too.

We have no way out of the financial death facing America, so why not pull a Hans Gruber and try to take the bastards down with you as you fall into the abyss?

Oh hell yeah, totally recommended.

What Happens If I Get a Response Back From the Debt Collector on my Debt Validation Request?

2011-07-12T11:37:00.003-04:00

The Scrub has been getting a lot of questions about Debt Validation lately. The Scrub doesn't mind it, but these questions seem to imply that the Scrub has not discussed debt validation nearly as much on the site as other topics. Those suspicions are accurate, but there is a reason for the lack of discussion.

The Scrub does not believe in reinventing the wheel. There is a kick-ass overview of debt validation, approaching monographic levels of authoritativeness, at Credit Info Center. Thus, the Scrub is going to direct your attention to the most authoritative discussion of debt validation on the internet, rather than give you the same information here plus curse words.

The question posed by the headline was asked by an anonymous commenter somewhere on this damned site. Good question needing an answer, so let's do this.

You asked a debt collector for debt validation. Surprisingly, they sent you something. What now?

When you receive information from the debt collector on a debt validation request, look closely at what they sent. Your next step is to determine whether what they sent you meets the standards required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

What constitutes a "proper" response?

Why, the Scrub has written about that already in the appropriately titled entry What are the Debt Validation Requirements for a Collection Agency?:

A proper debt validation response complies with the requirements of both the FTC and the FDCPA. That means you need, at a minimum, paperwork from the original creditor showing your liability for the debt AS WELL AS paperwork from the collection agency showing that they are lawfully entitled to collect on the debt. There may also be licensing requirements within your state that should also be provided in a proper debt validation response.

What the Scrub has not written about are the legal ramifications of asking for a proper Debt Validation and then receiving it.

Basically (actually, very extremely basically), you end up in a position to be sued for the debt if you get a proper debt validation. This is because there are two separate requirements for debt collectors when they file suit.

One requirement is to serve you notice of the lawsuit. The other is to serve you notice of your right to have the debt validated. If you make a timely request for debt validation, then the collector has to pause the lawsuit while responding to your request. This helps prevent Scumbag Collection Agency from obtaining a default judgment against you with no paperwork to prove they own the debt...but if Scumbag Collection Agency has the paperwork, then all you get is a stay of execution.

But all of that "pausing" goes away with a proper debt validation response. You exercised your right to request it under the FDCPA, and the lawsuit can go forward on the merits. That's all.

For more information

Please note that the original creditor is not bound by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act at all. This can get quite confusing at times, so make sure you read the letters sent to you CLOSELY.

Proposed Questions for Max Drucker, CEO of Social Intelligence Corporation

2011-06-30T11:55:00.002-04:00

Before reading this post, make sure you check out these for background:

What is Social Intelligence Corporation, and Why is it so Bad?

and

Who is Max Drucker? How About We Dig as Deep into His Background as He Wants to Dig into Yours...

Update: The Scrub discusses Social Intelligence's press coverage in Here, the Scrub Destroys the New York Times' Fluff Piece on Max Drucker and Social Intelligence Corporation

The Scrub has some questions (20, to be precise) about Social Intelligence Corporation and Mr. Drucker. These are the types of questions that an actual journalist would ask, rather than the propagandists that populate professional newsrags these days...okay, maybe they would leave out the profanity, but still.

Mr. Drucker can choose to answer them or not.

He won't.

Social Intelligence Corporation claims the following:

"We are not building a “database” on individuals that will be evaluated each time they apply for a job and potentially could be used adversely even if they have cleaned up their profiles. It is important for job applicants to understand we are not storing their historical information to be used against them the next time they apply for a job."

However, you also claim that you archive information for compliance reasons:

Data is archived purely for compliance reasons and not used for any other purposes. This is to provide a verifiable chain-of-custody in case the information is ever needed for legal reasons. Archived data is never used for new screens.

If this is true, how much liability would your organization face for refusing to disclose archival information, in your possession, to an employer who was not made aware that you had information that could have alerted an employer and, by extension, have avoided a violent event at their place of business?

Along this same point, do you have procedures in place to disclose archived information to employers in the event of a total "clean-up" of the employee's profile in order to avoid liability for violent events?

The Fair Credit Reporting Act applies to consumer reporting agencies. How does what you do qualify as a consumer reporting agency? Do you view free speech and free expression as analogous to financial issues? What justification do you have for such an analogy? Are free speech and expression consumer issues? If so, how?

You have stated that you will not be searching for any information not publicly posted. For example, you claim that your organization will not friend people on Facebook merely to access their private information.

But would you agree that your organization is merely casting a net to catch the unsophisticated internet user who may not be capable of or knowledgeable enough to secure their online privacy?

If you do recognize that fact, then why not go ahead and exploit their ignorance a bit further and see if they will friend you on Facebook and stupidly give you access?

What would be the difference between surreptitiously friending them on Facebook and running a program to tie their online pseudonym to a real world identity if, in either case, all you are doing is punishing them for being too stupid to protect their identity?

Does your organization have any plans to allow consumers to request free reports from your organization, under FACTA, prior to any adverse employment action?

If not, why?

If so, why do you not have the procedure in place now?

How is this statement:

“People need to exercise good judgment and understand what they post publicly is public and an employer has a right to know about it,”

compatible with the computer program you run to tie anonymous user postings to real world identities?

Along this line, who developed the computer program that you utilize for this function? Was it contracted for by any governmental entity?

Do you believe in the right to free speech and expression? Does that include speech and expression that you personally disagree with? What concerns, if any, do you have about the chilling effect your corporation will have on free speech and expression on the internet, since you would be tying someone's personal opinions and beliefs to ability to obtain work? Do you think it is appropriate for someone's personal, private opinions to be held against them when it might have no relevance whatsoever to their ability to perform the work?

Your organization employs a 3 person review committee to make value judgments about the following types of information uncovered during one of your searches:

a. Racist remarks

b. Clearly illegal activity such as drug use

c. Sexually explicit photos and videos

d. Flagrant displays of weapons or bombs

What qualifications do your reviewers have that would justify relying on their opinions?

What qualifications do they possess to decide that something is "racist"? Are they experts on racism? What about simple prejudice? What if someone is opposed to governmental programs that happen to have a racial impact, like affirmative action?

How would they characterize "clearly illegal"? Where do they draw the line with respect to "clearly illegal"? Do they possess law degrees?

How do they define "sexually explicit"? Is legal counsel consulted to make this determination? If your organization comes across sexually explicit materials involving children, do you save the images in your archives?

Also, this point really bothers the Scrub. What the fuck is "flagrantly displaying" a weapon, and how does that differ from mere "display"?

Given your connections to ChoicePoint, and the massive data breach that occurred there, why should anyone trust your organization to be any better at securing information? How long before we read an article in Wired.com about your organization being hit with a "hacker attack" and compromising your accounts? What safeguards do you have to prevent such attacks? Would you lie and bullshit the public like ChoicePoint did?

Was your organization funded with purely domestic funds, or did you obtain any funding from foreign sources? If you did obtain funding from foreign sources, do you recognize that Americans should be skeptical of an organization archiving everything on job applicants when you would owe your existence, in part, to foreign funding?

Along this point, do you recognize that your organization looks like a big, privately-owned spying entity and that foreign funding would raise concerns about your organization actually conducting spy operations on behalf of a foreign government or entity? What safeguards and oversight exists to ensure that this is not actually what is happening?

You claim to keep information archived for 7 years. What if you run multiple checks on the same individual over a period of 15 years. Does the prior check from 15 years ago get updated each time you run a new check? Is the information cross-referenced to make sure you have the right person? What justification would you make to the employer that it is okay for you to use the older information, but that they couldn't?

What safeguards exist in the event of identity theft? Or impersonation? Are you aware that being denied for a job is different from identity theft in that a job is a zero-sum business decision that goes away once the position is filled, whereas identity theft is an ongoing crime?

What is protocol for coming across information posted by a minor years ago once they reach the age of majority and begin applying for jobs? Do you include it? If so, do you think it is fair to have someone's speech, opinions, or actions before they were of legal capacity influence their job prospects years into the future? If not, do you think it is fair to your client, the employer, to withhold information like that?

Do you include disclosed information you come across during your search that was not posted by the target, but meets your criteria for inclusion and was posted by another individual without authorization to make the disclosure?

If not, why? Do you believe that information would not be valuable to your client, the hiring business?

If so, what justification do you have for including it, considering that the target did not choose to post that information themselves? What if the target posted something as private, but a reader mistakenly disclosed it publicly? Would you feel justified including that information if the intent was for the target to keep it private? Think hard before you answer that one with a "yes", because the follow up is a doozy.

What if an unauthorized third party disclosed one of Social Intelligence's trade secrets publicly? Would you feel that it is okay for the public disclosure of your trade secret to be exploited by anyone simply by public disclosure through no fault or intent of your own? Do you see the similarity?

Along this line, do you have any method of verification for information posted by a third party about your target? Is that done by your 3 person committee? What qualifications does your verifying agent possess that would qualify him or her to make that determination? Is your verifying agent trained in forensics, investigation protocol, and/or document analysis? If so, where was this person trained? If not, then how are they qualified to make such determinations?

Does your corporation have any plans to expand into other countries? If not, why? If so, which countries?

Along this line, given your support for the state of Israel and your heritage, would you be open to conducting your organization's operations in Israel too? If so, what do your Jewish friends and family think of that? If not, why is it okay to conduct your operations in the US, where you are a citizen, but not in Israel, where you are also able to claim citizenship by birthright?

In some of those party pictures the Scrub posted yesterday, you looked high as a kite on "da weed". Suppose you weren't, but the Scrub was in your shoes as head of Social Intelligence Corporation and included those pictures in your "report" for a job to which you applied. How would you prove that you were not stoned? How would the Scrub prove that you were stoned? What recourse would you have against me for making a determination that you couldn't deny and the Scrub couldn't prove? What recourse would you have after you found out you lost the job because the Scrub included pictures of you looking stoned out of your gourd, but you were really just legally drunk?

Why does this unaltered screenshot of one of your reports, posted by The Consumerist:

refer to "SIC" throughout the boilerplate language at the bottom but refers to "CIA" in the last sentence of the first paragraph? (No shit...blow the fucking thing up and read it yourself-scrub) Did the CIA prepare this document on your behalf? Is that a typo? Did you cut and paste their boilerplate language from somewhere and just forget to change it? Is this the attention to detail your organization will exhibit in compiling trillions of bits of evidence on complete strangers? Do you need an attorney to go over your boilerplate language to make sure it doesn't contain any typos?

Does your organization have any plans to apply for Federal or State government contracts? Does your organization have any current contracts with Federal or State agencies?

Are there any instances where your organization would disclose information to a potential employer that the employer did not request?

For example, an employer does not specifically request information on violent tendencies, but your search comes across what you deem "clearly" violent imagery. Would you include it anyway? If so, what justification do you have for doing so? If not, what liability would you face for withholding information that could result in someone's death?

Are there any instances where you would disclose information you come across to law enforcement without a court order, such as sexually explicit imagery of children? If so, why? If not, why?

How, specifically, were you able to break into the tech industry with no formal tech training that you admit to receiving?

Along this line, if you were so interested in technology and grew up around it, why did you study Political Science and Economics at Colorado College rather than something tech-related? Why did you not appear to use either concentration in your professional career? Were you able to use your Political Science concentration to get the job at Apple, for instance?

Also, how were you able to find investors for your first ventures into the tech world with no formal tech background? The Scrub knows quite a bit about tech, but he doesn't have magical connections to the investment capital world. How did you get those connections without a formal tech background?

***

There you go. Twenty questions for Mr. Drucker, CEO of Social Intelligence Corporation.

The Scrub would send them to him directly, but to do so requires filling out their online form that demands providing full name, title, company, and email address to do so.

Fuck dat. No telling what these assholes would do with that information.

As Promised, the Scrub's "Intelligence Report" on Max Drucker, CEO of Social Intelligence Corporation

2011-06-29T12:00:00.038-04:00

This post is a follow up to the Scrub's post on Social Intelligence Corporation. Read that first, then come back and read this.

Once you're done here, go read Part 3, which is The Scrub's 20 Uncomfortable Questions for Max Drucker, CEO of Social Intelligence Corporation. He won't be answering these in the Wall Street Journal anytime soon.

Update: The Scrub discusses Social Intelligence's press coverage in Here, the Scrub Destroys the New York Times' Fluff Piece on Max Drucker and Social Intelligence Corporation

***

The Scrub is sick of all the elitists who have one set of rules for themselves, a different set for everyone else.

This post is going to be a harsh read, but remember, the subject, Max Drucker, personally profits off of YOUR personal information and there is virtually no oversight of what his company does. He claims his company is a "consumer reporting agency", but their trade is expression and speech, not finance.

This is quite different from, say, FICO, or Equifax, who deal with financial information, have statutory duties to you, and comply with them for the most part. For example, you will not see the Scrub pursuing the CEO of TransUnion in this fashion, mainly because the Scrub recognizes that these folks are simply doing what they can with a broken system.

Social Intelligence Corporation, if allowed to continue acting as they have, will have a chilling effect on free speech over the internet. Once your cousin loses out on a good paying job simply because he was pictured online 5 years ago with a beer and Social Intelligence Corporation happened to include it in their report, you will hold your tongue online. What awaits the internet then?

Gentlemen are not supposed to behave this way, but we have long since passed the time where gentlemanly behavior ruled the day. If this is the system they want for us, then they're going to have to play by the same rules and experience what the rest of us do. That way, they can appreciate the joys of their behavior first hand.

Like Social Intelligence Corporation, the Scrub is just going to go solely on publicly available information. Unlike Social Intelligence Corporation, the Scrub is going to do this only for shits and giggles.

So let the shitting and giggling begin.

No wait, first, we need a big ass disclaimer.

DISCLAIMER:

ALL INFORMATION HEREIN WAS CULLED FROM PUBLIC SOURCES, IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THIS POST, AND WAS FOUND USING SIMPLE SEARCH FUNCTIONS THAT ANYONE WITH AN INTERNET CONNECTION COULD DISCOVER. FEEL FREE TO VERIFY THIS INFORMATION FOR YOURSELF BY VISITING THE LINKS PROVIDED.

ALL INFORMATION HEREIN IS BELIEVED TO BE ENTITLED TO FAIR USE PROTECTION. IF YOU FEEL THAT YOUR COPYRIGHT IS BEING INFRINGED, LET THE SCRUB KNOW AND WE CAN DISCUSS IT.

THE SCRUB IS NOT A CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCY OR PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR. THE SCRUB IS NOT CHARGING READERS ANY FEE FOR VIEWING THIS INFORMATION. THE SCRUB HAS NOT BEEN HIRED BY ANYONE TO COMPILE THIS INFORMATION.

THE SCRUB IS ONLY POSTING THIS INFORMATION FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES (this is the "shits and giggles" part).

EVEN THOUGH THE SCRUB STRIVES FOR ACCURACY AND THE INFORMATION APPEARS ACCURATE, THE SCRUB MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT ANY OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS IN FACT ACCURATE.

THE SCRUB CONSIDERS THIS ENTIRE POST TO BE WELL WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OUTLINED IN BLOGGER'S CONTENT POLICY. IF YOU FEEL THAT IT IS NOT, LET THE SCRUB KNOW AND WE CAN DISCUSS IT.

Now the shitting and giggling may begin.

The Scrub's Completely Free "Intelligence Report" on Max Drucker:

Max Leslie Drucker, aka "Fruckermax", looks like this:

Possible associates, courtesy of previous Veromi link:

Betsy Catya Heafitz
Rabbi Malka Drucker
Steve Drucker
Ivan Drucker
Carol Drucker
Erna Mariann Beck Drucker
May Drucker

The Scrub actually has more on some of these folks later, culled from other sources.

He is 36 years old.

He went to Cascade High School in California from 1989 to 1991.

He graduated from Colorado College in 1996:

"But there is a lot of irony that I got my degree in political science and economics," from The Colorado College (Colorado Springs), Drucker adds. "I don't have any formal technology background at all."

From the prior link, we can find even more information:

However, even though Drucker says a technical background is "important," even "critical," he has no formal technical training. "I have grown up with technology and it has always been a big part of my life," he says. "I grew up in a technology household. My brother worked for Apple. It has always been around me. I have tons of gadgets. My house is filled with toys—all technology.

First, note the "one set of rules for you, another for me" statement in the first sentence. It is "critical" for you to have a technical background, but not him.

Second, how does one without formal tech training, with a useless concentration in Political Science and a slightly more useful concentration in Economics, get these kinds of gigs? Pure speculation: The Scrub can think of one place that could open those doors AND provide the type of tech training one could use but not claim to have received publicly. There are plenty of others if you're the right ethnicity though.

Same link:

Despite a lack of technical training, Drucker has compiled a very "new media" resume—partner in the boutique Web development firm Steel Card; CTO and product manager of Riker Networks, Inc; technical lead for Cox Interactive Media; and Internet engineer for Apple Computer, where he was responsible for the daily production tasks for www.apple.com.

Again, landing a job with Apple with no formal technical training is magical, but the Scrub doesn't believe in magic. The Scrub believes in powerful organizations opening up doors that remain closed to outsiders with no formal training.

But don't take the Scrub's word for it. After all, he is just a gigantic talking eagle with a beard.

Still more information from the same link, originally posted November 15, 2000:

Hobbies: Technology and gadgets, snowboarding, going to baseball games, playing softball, and his dog, an English Bulldog.

Key Quote: ""Do not be afraid to try new things with technology and experiment.""

Favorite magazines: Business 2.0, Fast Company

Last good book read: Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson.

So note that a single story from over a decade ago can get you all sorts of information about someone. That information is public, and will likely remain so forever.

You know what else is public? Google maps.

Mr. Drucker lives at 1374 East Valley Road, Montecito, California, which happens to be on Google Street View. But, sadly, he is selling his home for $2.95 million. The Scrub encourages you to take the photo tour of his home.

But why would Mr. Drucker want to sell his home? Especially after the 21 pages of permanently documented partying?

Oh no! What if a future employer, 25 years from now, stumbles across these pictures of Mr. Drucker at a party?

Oh well, now he has to worry about the same thing you do. After all, his own words from a prior link:

“People need to exercise good judgment and understand what they post publicly is public and an employer has a right to know about it,” says Drucker.

Excellent point, and the Scrub will help you achieve that goal by continuing to explore all of the public information about you and compiling it into a simple post that anyone on Earth can find.

Let's move on.

Speaking of "move on", he has donated money to progressive causes, including maxing out his personal contribution limits to Barack Obama (that's $4,600 for you laymen). He also financially supports ActBlue and MoveOn.org, organizations concerned about domestic spying and the PATRIOT Act..organizations that railed against the lack of oversight and intelligence gathering...and now, a contributing member has founded a company designed to cull and archive trillions of bits of sensitive, but public, information on people. And disseminate that information to employers. For money.

The Scrub will not hold his breath waiting for MoveOn to come out against Mr. Drucker's company.

Also, in case you're wondering how The Scrub got his personal address, it was on one of his public campaign contributor filings.

Back on topic, Mr. Drucker was lauded as an insurance pioneer for his work with eCoverage, hailed as:

"a classic start-up guy: high energy, iconoclastic and willing to take the risks that others aren't"

...at least until eCoverage went out of business due to lack of financing.

He also was a managing partner of SteelCard, which was bought by ChoicePoint in 2006, and an associate with FLOH Club. And he...hmmm...wait...

...ChoicePoint?

Wait, this ChoicePoint? The one that got busted claiming they were "hacked" and compromised personal information on thousands of clients, but it later came out they were lying and they willingly handed over the information? That ChoicePoint?

Oh shit. That ain't good.

Okay then...where were we? Oh yeah...

The Scrub also found a picture of his first child, Solomon, on a website for Derek Acker Construction. Solomon won a Bob the Builder Construction Set from them during a "Client Appreciation Party" in May 2004. The Scrub has the picture on his personal hard drive, but the Scrub will not publicly archive it out of respect for a child.

Weirded out yet by the sensitive, but public, types of information the Scrub was able to cull yet? No? Keep reading then.

Mr. Drucker is Jewish, listed as a "Patron of Freedom" by the Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara, alongside his wife Betsy Catya Drucker nee Heafitz:

How does one become a "Patron of Freedom"? By donating money to support the "Israel Experience Fund".

What does this fund do? Who the fuck cares, all human faiths are wrong. The Scrub is a gigantic talking eagle who worships the All-Powerful, Invisible Eagle living on a cloud in space.

Mr. Drucker's mother is Rabbi Malka Drucker. Here, she discusses a note she received from her son on her personal website.

Malka Drucker also admits to being a lesbian at this link.

***

Okay, the Scrub has probably made his point and will stop here.

But please note, the Scrub discovered all of this information solely from public sources with about 3 hours of internet searching.

Literally, the Scrub could spend weeks uncovering all sorts of information about this guy. For example, the Scrub could spend another few hours and uncover all sorts of information about those pictured at the party, and then use those names to uncover more information, and so on.

The Scrub's executive summary, based solely on what the information provided herein exhibits:

1. Mr. Drucker's political beliefs:

He is a political liberal, but is not wedded to the classical liberal notion of privacy rights when such ideas stand between himself and a pile of money he wishes to acquire.

2. Mr. Drucker's religious beliefs:

He is Jewish, and a supporter of the State of Israel.

3. Mr. Drucker's career:

He has the magical, "doors open automatically" and "venture capital appears out of nowhere" background of either someone who is politically connected or an intelligence asset...possibly both.

4. Mr. Drucker's publicly known financial situation:

He likely has a personal net worth well into the multi-million dollar range, given his home value. The bulk of his wealth probably came from the ChoicePoint buy-out.

5. Mr. Drucker's known associates:

We found all sorts of pictures of him, his family, his friends, possible co-workers, even a picture of the contractor he hired to renovate his house in 2004. As indicated earlier, if the Scrub wanted to, he could spend the time figuring out who everybody was.

6. Mr. Drucker's interests:

We found personal statements made by him a decade ago indicating his interests. We also found pictures of him attending events that would indicate his political interests...not to mention the public campaign contributions that label him a typical mainstream, left-leaning Democrat (with a dose of blatant hypocrisy when it comes to privacy rights, but the Scrub digresses).

***

Scrub! What does this have to do with credit reports?

Social Intelligence Corporation claims they are a consumer reporting agency and that they are governed by the FCRA.

But Scrub! What do you hope to accomplish from all of this?

The Scrub is trying to get you to understand what this guy's company is doing, and how it is going to directly impact your life. Even if he goes out of business, someone else will copycat this model and it will become ubiquitous.

In 10 years, you won't be able to get a job at Wal-Mart if you ever said a single negative thing about them online, because they'll be doing this type of shit.

Side note: fuck Wal-Mart.

Okay Scrub! But why post pictures?

Because remember, his company is archiving the information they come across in the public domain, just like The Scrub has done here. Yes, they only disseminate some of it to their clients i.e. the employers, but they come across it and archive it. They themselves claim in this news story:

While Social Intelligence helps employers reduce their legal risk when it comes to checking into prospective employees' social networking activity, it doesn't protect the job seeker's privacy. The opinions they express and images they chose to post on the open Web were never private, therefore, their dirty laundry remains subject to Social Intelligence and its customers' prying eyes.

The Scrub is just letting you see the dirty laundry of the guy who wants to rummage through yours for a profit. The difference is that the Scrub is letting everyone see it for free as a public service. This is the type of shit journalists are supposed to do, but don't.

Also note that even if you change something on your profile, they still keep it archived in the prior state for seven years. It never goes away.

But Scrub! You said earlier something about 25 years, but they say they are only keeping stuff for 7 years!

The Scrub is skeptical of the unaudit-able and completely unverifiable promises made by Mr. Drucker...especially with his connections to ChoicePoint.

Call the Scrub a crazy cynic, but he gave up trusting public authority figures around this time. He also gave up believing in any meaningful oversight right around the time that the financial industry regulators were found to be doing this instead of their jobs.

Still, Scrub! This seems wrong! You went too far!

The Scrub is not bashing Mr. Drucker or anyone else for personal beliefs, sexual orientation, financial situation, etc. The Scrub is bashing Mr. Drucker for his business practices and the laughable assertion that trafficking in speech and expression is somehow analogous to financial information.

Also note that, according to their own FAQ, their reports contain the following information about you:

A consumer report contains the consumer’s full name, email address, and permanent address, as well as employer information and a time-stamp history, screen shots of offensive material, and comments provided by the Social Intelligence team concerning findings.

During the course of obtaining this information, they will come across other bits of information and archive it. They stated they would.

One more thing:

He's on Facebook.

Social Intelligence Corporation is Watching You Online, The Scrub Will Watch Them Back

2011-06-28T12:00:00.014-04:00

The Scrub has finalized his 3-part epic on Max Drucker and Social Intelligence Corporation. The post you are reading now is part 1.

Part 2 is The Scrub's Intelligence Report on Max Drucker, CEO of Social intelligence Corporation, for those of you who appreciate a good schadenfreude bout.

Part 3 is The Scrub's 20 Uncomfortable Questions for Max Drucker, CEO of Social Intelligence Corporation. He won't be answering these in the Wall Street Journal anytime soon.

Update: The Scrub discusses Social Intelligence's press coverage in Here, the Scrub Destroys the New York Times' Fluff Piece on Max Drucker and Social Intelligence Corporation

***

The Scrub came across a nice little story about how a company called Social Intelligence Corporation is being hired to research your every move online:

The Federal Trade Commission has approved a controversial firm which scours social media sites to check on job applicants...

The Washington-based commission has ruled the firm, Social Intelligence Corporation, complies with the Fair Credit Reporting Act - even though it keeps the results of its searches on file for seven years.

It raises the frightening prospect of any social media posting, even it's years old or was meant as a joke, being used in background checks.

Applicants who use online pseudonyms aren't safe, either - the firm uses special software to link those nicknames with real, offline names known to employers.

One applicant found himself out of the running for a job after being branded racist because he once joined a Facebook group called 'I shouldn't have to press one for English. We are in the United States. Learn the language.'

Yeah, that doesn't sound like anything the Fair Credit Reporting Act was intended to protect. Actually, the website for Social Intelligence Corporation makes a big deal about how employers are already using Google to search for information about candidates:

Employers need to Google job candidates to protect themselves from litigation over negligent hires, but doing so leaves employers unprotected from discrimination charges.

Q. Does Social Intelligence store information about job applicants that can potentially be used against them on future job hunts?

A. No. Data is archived purely for compliance reasons and not used for any other purposes. This is to provide a verifiable chain-of-custody in case the information is ever needed for legal reasons. Archived data is never used for new screens.

As per our policies and obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the only information we collect on job applicants is employer defined criteria that is legally allowable in the hiring process. Examples of this include racist remarks, sexually explicit photos or videos, or illegal activity such as drug use.

We are not building a “database” on individuals that will be evaluated each time they apply for a job and potentially could be used adversely even if they have cleaned up their profiles. It is important for job applicants to understand we are not storing their historical information to be used against them the next time they apply for a job.

The Scrub believes zero percent of their bullshit about "not building a database" to be used in future reports. Why?

1. The information contained therein is highly desirable and many organizations would pay dearly for archived bits of information about certain individuals.

2. Archival information would assist Social Intelligence Corporation in future activities, such as recalling old data to help track down a new target.

3. This information will be used to trace individuals, making it highly improbable that one could avoid having their past statements, opinions, pictures, etc. come back to haunt them.

Of course, please note that there appears to be no way for you to request any copies of reports from them for free...you know, one of those things the ~~FCRA~~ Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act demands (sorry about that...brain fart...FACTA amended the FCRA to require these disclosures...a minor technicality but it does not render Social Intelligence Corporation immune from those requirements). The Scrub was going to contact them directly and ask for a link to their form for requesting one, but to contact them you have to provide your full name, title, company, and email address. Fuck that.

Never mind all that, though, because they're also offering to help your employer spy on you in real time.

The Consumerist mentions some of the most obvious concerns that this company's very existence presents:

Another profile was flagged for having racist tendencies for clicking "Like" on a Facebook group called, "I shouldn't have to press 1 for English. We are in the United States. Learn the language."

So many things wrong here I don't even know where to begin...

* How do they know they have the right "you?" The profile on "John Smith" has got to be horrendous.
* Can you now sabotage someone's job prospects by creating a fake profile of them filled with racist, homophobic and violent imagery?
* Considering how hard it is to fix an error on your credit report, how hard will it be to fix an error on your social media report?

So what type of stuff are they claiming to be interested in? David Scott at IT Knowledge Exchange mentions the following:

(CEO of Social Intelligence Corporation Max Drucker) does say that employers are primarily interested in the following categories for screening applicants:

* Racist remarks

* Clearly illegal activity such as drug use

* Sexually explicit photos and videos

* Flagrant displays of weapons or bombs

In other words, this is political correctness merged with nanny-state-ism.

Put simply, your private thoughts and opinions, expressed publicly but perhaps anonymously or under a pseudonym, are now to be tracked, measured and evaluated by employers. Once that is done, you are stuck with them forever.

But no worry. Mr. Drucker says we're really the good guys.

Consider the Scrub unim-fucking-pressed.

Think about how silly this is.

Who decides something is racist? What standards are used? Does the ethnicity of the speaker come into play? Who makes that decision?

What gives Social Intelligence Corporation the right to determine what is "clearly illegal"? Have they been deputized? Are they elected judges? Are they a permanently empaneled jury?

What constitutes "sexually explicit"? Do we rely on religious texts? Potter Stewart's famous "I know it when I see it" standard? Hugh Hefner's opinion? What if sexual mores change over time? At one point, wearing a short skirt was sexually explicit. How short is too short?

What qualifies as a weapon? The Scrub was once stabbed in the foot with a fork (don't ask). Does that count? What is the delineation for "flagrantly" displaying one? Does "flagrantly" involve holding a cocked pistol sideways? What if someone flagrantly displayed a fork?

The Scrub would like to point out that, in his opinion, elitists like the CEO of Social Intelligence Corporation, Max Drucker, enjoy doing shit like this to other people but probably don't like having it done to themselves.

Therefore, allow the Scrub to return the favor to Mr. Drucker on your behalf. For free. In a post tomorrow.

And ho boy, it will be epic.

Minor Change to the Sample Debt Validation Letter

2011-06-24T15:00:00.003-04:00

The Scrub would like to make you aware of a small, but necessary, change to the Sample Debt Validation Letter.

The original letter read as follows:

I am in receipt of your letter dated (date you received their letter).

The change is as follows:

Pick whichever is relevant:

A. I am in receipt of your letter dated (date you received their letter), or

B. Upon review of my (Experian, Equifax, TransUnion) credit report, I discovered that your (company or organization) has reported an item therein.

Why this change was made:

For obvious reasons. If you discovered the account from checking your credit report, then your letter should reflect that fact.

The Scrub thought this change was intuitive (if you never received a letter, obviously you wouldn't put that in your letter), but thought he would be nice and give you some free Scrub-worthy language to include rather than having you make it up on the fly.

Why You Should Not Email a Pay for Delete Offer

2011-06-22T11:49:00.003-04:00

Simple answer:

A whole bunch of stuff could go wrong.

Longer answer:

A whole bunch of stuff could go wrong. For instance...

What is most likely to occur if you email it? You get an "acceptance" response email. Does that contain a signature? Probably not. That is a problem because if they don't sign it, they might not have agreed to it legally.

Do they type out each explicit section and initial it to show agreement of each part? Probably not. Again, absent explicit agreement, you might run into trouble.

What about the shady debt collector employed by Scumbag Collection Agency? Think of all the terrible things they could do.

They could remove parts of the email they did not like.

They could append part of your offer to another, more agreeable offer.

They could "accept" your email offer through the account of a non-employee...someone without authority to bind them to the contract. Yes, you might be able to argue that they had "apparent authority" to bind them to the contract, but that issue ends up getting decided in court. Feel like a legal fight to the death with a debt collector, costing a few thousand dollars in legal fees, over a $266.79 medical debt? Probably not.

The Scrub could go on, but he will not. That should be enough right there.

Now then, think of the protections you get by following the standard format for requesting deletion for payment:

1. Signed response

2. Initialed sections to minimize chance of skullduggery

3. Proof that they received the exact letter you sent, and accepted the same

4. Inability to "cut and paste" or "merge" your offer with another

Yes, the mail takes forever. Yes, email is quicker and easier. Yes, email is cheaper. Those are all nice things.

But you know what is better? Spending a few extra bucks and waiting a few extra days to ensure that your ass is protected. Debt collectors are scum, as mentioned earlier:

Collection agencies are the scum of the Earth, and many will do anything to get paid. Like dressing up like cops and holding mock courts for debtors. Or threatening to have your kids taken away by child protective services. Or calling you ten times a day in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Or threatening to send you to jail.

***A few more must-reads about pay for deletion agreements***

Are pay for delete agreements legal?

Learn what to do if your pay for deletion agreement fails

Only the party you send the letter to is able to negotiate a pay for deletion agreement with you

If your debt is sold to a collection agency, then your pay for deletion agreement only binds the collection agency

It is possible to negotiate a pay for deletion agreement with a payment plan

Credit Report Scrub has more free sample credit repair letters for you to use and abuse as much as you like

Common Credit Questions: What Happens to a Debt if I Move?

2011-06-16T12:00:00.003-04:00

This question has much to do with your state's statute of limitations. Here is how the Scrub wishes to answer this issue.

1. You move to a place in the same state as before

If you move within the state, then nothing happens. You are still governed by the same time period for the statute of limitations.

2. You move out of state

If you move out of state, then it gets a bit trickier. Most likely, the state you lived in has a "tolling" provision. That means that your time spent outside of the state does not count toward the statute of limitations period in the statute. Instead, the statute of limitations period pauses while you are out of the state.

The Scrub discusses the concept of "tolling" in the appropriately titled blog entry What Does Tolling the Statute of Limitations Mean?.

This raises another question.

3. What if you move out of the state, the statute of limitations period tolls, then you move back to the state?

All of the tolling provisions that the Scrub is familiar with treat the time that you were absent from the state as a "pause" in the time frame.

Suppose, for example, that you live in State X, and that State X has a 6 year statute of limitations and a standard tolling provision. You had a jet ski loan through a bank. The account was charged off in May 2006 while you lived in State X. The jet ski was later repossessed. You left State X in May 2007, moving to State Y. Then you returned to State X in May 2011. The remaining time on the statute of limitations is 5 years, because you were outside of State X for 1 year.

Note that the original time frame does not reset to 6 years, but rather only pauses while you are outside of State X. A "reset" usually (only?) occurs when you reaffirm the debt somehow..e.g. paying on it, saying you'll pay on it, or even signing a letter to your creditor and magically having that signature end up on a document saying you'll reaffirm it. The Scrub discusses the ins and outs of reaffirmation in another appropriately titled blog entry, What is Reaffirming a Debt?.

This raises another question.

4. What happens if I move out of state, move back into the state, move out of the state again, and then move to China?

At some point, like the example in the question, the Scrub has to tell you that visiting an attorney is your only chance of getting a reliable answer. If your moving patterns resemble those of a carnival worker, Army brat, a gypsy, or a gypsy Army Reservist working for a carnival during the summer, then you are in need of professional legal advice on how best to unwind your legal obligations and protections that go well beyond anything the Scrub can do to help. This is because a licensed attorney would need to see documents, addresses, rent stubs, utility payments, etc. in order to get an accurate picture of where the hell you were at what point, and how long you were there.

For more information on Statute of Limitations

Let's see...how about this post on Interpreting Your State's Statute of Limitations.

Common Credit Questions: What is Debt Reaffirmation/Reaffirming a Debt?

2011-06-13T13:12:00.004-04:00

Reaffirmation of a debt is a legal term for a process by which you, the debtor, agree to pay on a debt even after some debt-cleansing legal principle has eliminated your legal requirement to do so. The Scrub is familiar with two types of debt reaffirmation:

1. Reaffirming debts in bankruptcy

Depending on the type of bankruptcy petition you file, you may be contacted by a creditor and asked to reaffirm a debt, or you may end up contacting the creditor yourself and asking to reaffirm. All this means is that you would end up agreeing to pay the debt despite the bankruptcy process.

There are reasons you may want to do so, such as reaffirming a secured debt to keep whatever the loan was for, like a car. Obviously, your bankruptcy attorney would need to go over the ramifications of doing so. The Scrub isn't getting into that stuff on the site.

2. Reaffirming debts outside of bankruptcy

This is more in line with what we discuss on the site.

Reaffirming debts outside of bankruptcy is often (usually? almost always?) done inadvertently by the debtor. It is usually a means of avoiding the statute of limitations defense to old debts. It works like this:

You live in a state with a 6 year statute of limitations. A debt collector contacts you about a $500.00 debt from 1992. At this point, the debt is time barred by the statute of limitations because the debt is too old for them to sue. They are deemed to have "slept on their right to sue", to use a common refrain. If they do sue you at this point, you can simply file an answer to the suit, cite the statute of limitations as a defense, and, if you have the attorney file the right paperwork, you win 100 times out of 100.

However, during the phone call, which they recorded, they get you to admit that the debt is yours, and also get you to agree to pay them the full amount owed. Well now, you have reaffirmed the debt. All of a sudden, the $500.00 debt from 1992 becomes $14,553.86 in interest, penalties, fees, etc. AND, more importantly, they can sue you and you can no longer cite the statute of limitations as a defense and win. This is because your words admitting liability for the debt, combined with a renewed promise to pay, have reaffirmed the debt and thereby reset the statute of limitations to a brand new 6 year time frame. You are, for all intents and purposes, screwed.

This is one of the many reasons why the Scrub tells you folks never talk to debt collectors on the phone.

For more on this, check out the Scrub's piece on understanding the statute of limitations.

Your Rulers are Meeting to Determine Your Financial Well-Being, Act Accordingly

2011-06-09T15:44:00.004-04:00

Protip: if you are trying to hide what you are doing, you probably shouldn't be doing it...like the money masters of the universe putting up a giant plastic sheet with which to cower behind like cowards and cower-ers. As the author of the linked article asks:

This is the bit about Bilderberg that I really don't get. It's an old chestnut, but let's just take another bite at it. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Bilderberg benefits us all. The citizens of the world are made safer, or happier, or healthier, or better off as a result of this meeting. Let's just say that the head of Deutsche Bank spends four days with the head of BP in order to improve our lives.

Let's suppose, shall we, that the amiable hosts – David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, and the Queen of the Netherlands – have the interests of the general public written in big red letters at the top of their conference agenda.

Suppose all that. Then why the fence? Why do delegates fling themselves across the back seats of their limousines rather than be seen attending this helpful gathering? Why the blacked-out windows and the newspapers held in front of their faces? And why the big white fence? I don't get it.

Why isn't Josef Ackermann, the CEO of Deutsche Bank, waving benignly to the crowds? Why aren't the excited participants pausing at the hotel gates to speak to the invited press? "Yes, thank you, we're hoping to solve Europe's financial crisis this year – so finger's crossed!" Why are German plane clothes policemen following members of the public around Swiss streets...? Sorry – different question. Important, but different.

The Scrub supposes it is because they spend all weekend sitting around a big conference table rubbing their crotches with wads of Federal Reserve Notes.

Anyway, fuck these idiots. The Scrub wants to discuss something with you folks.

The lessons learned from the Financial Crisis of 2008 to present can be summarized as follows:

1. The ruling elites have no clue what they are doing;

2. The ruling elites now understand that they have no clue what they are doing;

3. The ruling elites know that the public knows that they have no clue what they are doing;

4. The ruling elites now know that the only thing keeping them in power is the "war + debt + distraction" economic model.

Point 4 is the salient point for discussion here. Once you understand #4, you can plainly see how the major world events unfold and plan accordingly.

The Scrub will divide the discussion into three segments:

1. War

War serves to distract the public and maintain certain sectors of the economy. This is why the wars cannot stop. The end of a war is highly deflationary. In an economic environment such as ours, with enormous wealth destruction, the end of a war would further depress the economy and drive one of the booming industries (military supply and contracting) into downsizing.

This should give you all the background needed to avoid being surprised by headlines that read "secret US wars being waged by drones against (country X)". War is economic activity.

2. Debt

Debt serves to postpone recognition of the severity of the crisis. Debt is a means of financing a prior lifestyle no longer maintainable by your current economic condition...probably due to no fault of your own.

Debt also serves to push the public into serving the war machine. The war segment of the economy is one of the few that is actively hiring.

3. Distraction

Do you really give a shit about Anthony Weiner's weiner? If not, why is this story featured on all major news media outlets?

Because the press has an agenda:

And the Scrub doesn't want to hear any "liberal media" or "conservative media" BS. The media exists to serve the elites of both parties. It transcends party. The media serves the idiots discussed in the quoted story above i.e. the ones hiding behind a tarp in Switzerland, rubbing FRNs on their crotches while listening to a Powerpoint presentation on how to pillage slightly more wealth for themselves.

So yeah, act accordingly.

Pay for Delete Agreements: Still Legal, Still the Loophole You Aren't Supposed to Know About

2011-06-02T09:00:00.004-04:00

This post represents the Scrub's ultimate pay for delete mythbuster. It is required reading.

The Scrub is getting tired of all the bad credit repair advice floating around the internet like an unflushed turd. It really gets old after a while.

Credit Report Scrub has been online for at least 10,000 years. Why does bad advice still exist?

Oh yeah, the creditors of the world want you to remain debt slaves, paying them 79.9% on a credit card.

The Scrub is still reading information from the collection agencies and "experts" of the internet that pay for delete agreements are in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act...for instance, this guy at BankRate, who wrote a really good advice piece on pay for delete agreements, only to have his work destroyed by a cancerous addendum cautioning the reader that, gasp, collection agencies might not like following the advice here because they say it is illegal.

Oh, the horror!

Collection agencies are the scum of the Earth, and many will do anything to get paid. Like dressing up like cops and holding mock courts for debtors. Or threatening to have your kids taken away by child protective services. Or calling you ten times a day in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Or threatening to send you to jail.

For starters.

But whoa, there, chief, don't be asking them to do something that they say is illegal. Why, even though they will break every law known to man, and probably some not known to man, the fact that they can claim that "Pay for delete agreements violate the FCRA" with a straight face, cite no specific section to support their claim, and get people to go along with it is laughable. Absolutely fucking laughable.

The Scrub has already dealt with this argument before, in the appropriately titled entry Are Pay for Deletion Agreements Legal?, answering in the affirmative. However, the Scrub feels the need to make a more complete effort this time, destroying this myth once and for all.

One more time, with feeling...

Specifically, when a bank, or a collection agency, or a law firm, or a jet ski repossession outfit turns down your offer to pay for delete, they will often point to your offer as being "in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act", right?

Do they ever, specifically, refer you to which section you are asking them to violate? Probably not. If you do luck out, or be enough of a prick to force them to tell you, then the section that they will refer to is Section 623.

The Scrub has referenced 623 quite a bit on the site. He'll put it here and there, in bits and pieces. But never before has he annotated the whole damned thing, with comments, in a way that his minions could read and understand.

Why has he not done that yet? Good question, with no good answer.

Therefore, let's do this.

Here is the ever-hyped Section 623, in easily digestible parts, with the relevant pieces left in and the irrelevant shit removed. We will use a hypothetical debt scenario (you, a bank, TransUnion, and a jet ski loan that may or may not be charged off) to flesh out the language:

§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies

(a) Duty of Furnishers of Information to Provide Accurate Information
(1) Prohibition
(A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not
furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting
agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the
information is inaccurate.

What does this mean?

It means that your bank cannot report you to TransUnion as delinquent on your jet ski loan if you are current.

(B) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors. A person shall
not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting
agency if
(i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by
the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and
(ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.

What does this mean?

It means that if you file a dispute with the bank, and the bank determines that you were right and they were wrong about you being delinquent on the jet ski loan, the bank cannot keep reporting their wrong information to TransUnion.

(D) Definition. For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term “reasonable cause to
believe that the information is inaccurate” means having specific knowledge,
other than solely allegations by the consumer, that would cause a reasonable
person to have substantial doubts about the accuracy of the information.

What does this mean?

Suppose that the bank says you were delinquent on the jet ski loan due to a simple clerical error. They were wrong, you were current. If they had spent five seconds reviewing their records, they would quickly discover their error and realize that you were current. Even though they did not actually know, their blatant, American Banker-style incompetence would probably find them being "deemed" to have known, because a reasonable banker would know to check their records (note that the Scrub is assuming the judge is not bought and paid for by the bank).

(2) Duty to correct and update information. A person who
(A) regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one
or more consumer reporting agencies about the person's transactions or ex-
periences with any consumer; and
(B) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person
determines is not complete or accurate, shall promptly notify the consumer
reporting agency of that determination and provide to the agency any correc-
tions to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to
make the information provided by the person to the agency complete and
accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the information
that remains not complete or accurate.

What does this mean?

If the bank has reported you to TransUnion, charged it off and reported it unpaid, and you try to do a Pay for Delete agreement, if they agree to do the PFD agreement then there is nothing here that would keep them from arguing that their continued reporting of the debt as unpaid is prohibited.

This is because the debt, now paid, is still reported as unpaid. Surprise, this makes the reported debt inaccurate because the tradeline has not been updated to reflect paid status. Removing the entire account is a way to correct the violation of this section. There is nothing here to prohibit doing so, as we will read later.

(5) Duty to Provide Notice of Delinquency of Accounts
(A) In general. A person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting
agency regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to
profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action shall, not later than 90 days
after furnishing the information, notify the agency of the date of delinquency
on the account, which shall be the month and year of the commencement of
the delinquency on the account that immediately preceded the action.

What does this mean?

Your bank chooses to report your charged off jet ski loan to TransUnion. This states they have to provide notice of the date of first delinquency.

Note that the language states "a person who furnishes information..." which is a qualifier, indicating that not all persons fall under this heading...just those people who furnish information. Thus, if your bank chooses not to report your delinquent jet ski loan, they do not fall under this heading. The bank would be a person choosing not to furnish information, of which there is no liability under the FCRA for being.

Wait, did you just say that a bank is a person?

Yep. In the US, corporations are people. You think that is stupid? Well, what really sucks is that corporations have more rights than you do.

Back to the topic at hand.

(B) Rule of construction. For purposes of this paragraph only, and provided that
the consumer does not dispute the information, a person that furnishes infor-
mation on a delinquent account that is placed for collection, charged for
profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action, complies with this
paragraph, if –
(i) the person reports the same date of delinquency as that provided by the
creditor to which the account was owed at the time at which the com-
mencement of the delinquency occurred, if the creditor previously
reported that date of delinquency to a consumer reporting agency;
(ii) the creditor did not previously report the date of delinquency to a
consumer reporting agency, and the person establishes and follows
reasonable procedures to obtain the date of delinquency from the creditor
or another reliable source and reports that date to a consumer reporting
agency as the date of delinquency; or
(iii) the creditor did not previously report the date of delinquency to a con-
sumer reporting agency and the date of delinquency cannot be reasonably
obtained as provided in clause (ii), the person establishes and follows
reasonable procedures to ensure the date reported as the date of delin-
quency precedes the date on which the account is placed for collection,
charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action, and reports
such date to the credit reporting agency.

What does this mean?

More date of first delinquency shit. This is what is called a "Safe Harbor Provision" in a statute. It basically tells the bank what they can do to cover their ass and avoid liability under this section.

The only reason the Scrub includes it here is because it explicitly states "provided that the consumer does not dispute the information", which is important. Why? Because every good PFD letter will avoid admitting liability for the underlying debt, instead choosing to dispute the underlying debt while offering to settle. Thus, this section would not apply to properly phrased PFD agreements.

(7) Negative Information
(A) Notice to Consumer Required
(i) In general. If any financial institution that extends credit and regularly
and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to a consumer
reporting agency described in section 603(p) furnishes negative infor-
mation to such an agency regarding credit extended to a customer, the
financial institution shall provide a notice of such furnishing of negative
information, in writing, to the customer.
(ii) Notice effective for subsequent submissions. After providing such notice,
the financial institution may submit additional negative information to a
consumer reporting agency described in section 603(p) with respect to the
same transaction, extension of credit, account, or customer without
providing additional notice to the customer.

What does this mean?

The Scrub includes this part just to show you that your rights are your rights, and it is important to use them or you will certainly lose them.

This section says that the bank "shall" notify you of the delinquent jet ski account being reported to TransUnion. Note the word "shall". In statutory construction, "shall" is a command. THOU SHALL NOT REPORT THINE CHARGE-OFF TO TRANSUNION WITHOUT NOTIFYING JIMBOB, SON OF JEDIDIAH.

Do you see "shall" in anything like, say, "all lenders shall report every delinquent account on their books to every credit reporting agency currently in business"? Of course not.

But Scrub! Just because the law is silent here is not indicative of that requirement being elsewhere!

When the Feds want to force someone to do something, they do it and are pretty up front about it. For example, student loans must be reported to at least one major credit bureau. Hell, even the Internal Revenue Code is explicit in using the terms "shall" and "all".

(b) Duties of Furnishers of Information upon Notice of Dispute
(1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute
with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person
to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall
(A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;
(B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency
pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i];
(C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency;
(D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, re-
port those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person
furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers
on a nationwide basis; and
(E) if an item of information disputed by a consumer is found to be inaccurate or
incomplete or cannot be verified after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1),
for purposes of reporting to a consumer reporting agency only, as appropriate,
based on the results of the reinvestigation promptly–
(i) modify that item of information;
(ii) delete that item of information; or
(iii) permanently block the reporting of that item of information.

What does this mean?

It means that if the bank ends up reporting inaccurate/incomplete/unverifiable information, they can modify the account, delete the piece of information that is wrong for the account, or delete the entire account. Yes, they actually use the word "delete". Amazing, huh?

Thus ends the relevant sections of 623. Now we will segue into answering some questions raised by this analysis.

1. But Scrub! If the collection agencies, junk debt buying law firms, and banks of the world wanted to have everything reported, why was the law not drafted with "shall" language?

Because doing so would create something called "an affirmative legal duty to report". Suppose the law did contain that "shall" provision, requiring every single debt to be reported. What does that look like?

It would lead to absurdities like forcing every extender of credit, even places like Wal-Mart or Jimbob's TV Shack, to report everything they do to TransUnion. What about layaway? Does that count as an extension of credit? What about a small time accountant's "floating 30 day account" with Staples? See the point?

Do you think they want that much liability hanging out there? Of course not. There are something like 500 quadrillion consumer credit transactions every second.

Also, to be effective, it must be the case that premature removal of the debt would end up creating liability prior to the expiration of the maximum reporting time. This gets kind of complicated, so bear with the Scrub.

Suppose the debt "shall" be reported. Well, to make that part of statute have teeth, the time frame for reporting debts no longer becomes a maximum permitted, but rather a minimum required. Why is this so?

Because if the debt is to be reported for 7.5 years, for example, but you can remove it at 3 years with no liability, then that would swallow up the entire "shall be reported" language, right? What is the point if the debt could be removed at any time once the debt is reported? Under this interpretation, debts could be reported for five minutes, a PFD agreement could be executed, and the debt could be removed in another five minutes and the entire transaction would be well within this interpretation.

Then, obviously, the "shall be reported" language would simply indicate that the debt "shall be reported" for whatever time frame the creditor chooses to require. The end result would be the same situation as we have now i.e. creditors, collectors, and credit reporting agencies worried about consumers proposing PFD agreements.

Then, of course, if you force the creditors to report everything and require them to report for the maximum time frame allowed, you have put the creditors and collectors into a precarious position. How much would that cost businesses and consumers in compliance costs? What if they remove the debt a week early? What liability exists under the statute for that? What if they report a debt in error for fear of being caught for not reporting? What if they require further investigation of a debt to ensure accurate reporting? Does the statute, under this interpretation, result in more harm than good?

And to finish this point, the whole issue of enforcement comes into play under this "shall be reported" interpretation. Does the FTC have the resources to ensure that Jimbob is complying with this strict interpretation of the FCRA? Of course not. Do the states? No. Does anybody else? Maybe Superman.

2. But Scrub! Why do they claim that there is "an affirmative legal duty to report" if it does not actually exist?

Because if PFD agreements become widely known and utilized, it undercuts the entire credit reporting model.

The credit reporting agencies of the world are only as good as the information in their database. They have billions invested in collecting the information, and the creditors and collectors of the world have billions more invested on the good word of those reporting agencies. Poison the well, and the water becomes undrinkable.

The only possible source of an affirmative legal duty to report, at least in simple consumer transactions like those we have been discussing, could come from the bank's contract with the credit reporting agency. Note, however, that the contract between the bank and, say, TransUnion, has nothing to do with you personally vis a vis legal duties. That is a completely private matter between two private "persons". The law governing those disputes is simple contract law, not the FCRA, FDCPA, or whatever acronym you can think of.

In other words, the bank is free to contract with you however they see fit, within the contours of the law of course. This would include PFD agreements, as we have seen. Any disagreements/breach of contract claims for the credit reporting agency due to PFD agreements would be against the bank. The fact that the chance of discovering a private PFD agreement between a bank and a debtor is between zero and less than 1% is what frightens the more rational actors on the scene.

3. Why would some banks choose to accept PFD agreements even knowing the possible ramifications of widespread use?

Game Theory:

So Long Sucker (real title "Fuck You, Buddy" -Scrub) is a board game invented in 1950 by John Forbes Nash, Mel Hausner, Lloyd S. Shapley and Martin Shubik. It is a four-person bargaining/economic strategy game. Each player begins the game with 7 chips, and in the course of play, attempts to acquire all the other players' chips. This requires making agreements with the other players which are ultimately unenforceable. To win, players must eventually renege on such agreements.

In other words, the short term profits that come from collecting on long-delinquent accounts entice some creditors and collectors into breaking agreements they have made with credit reporting agencies, regardless of the possible long-term effects. This is how they, as temporary participants who will be long gone before the long term effects are felt, "win" the game.

The Scrub helps you take notice of the what "the game" is, who is playing it, and how you can benefit yourself. And you thought this site was just free credit repair advice and curse words written by a giant Eagle with a beard? For shame.

4. Why do they lie about PFD agreements all the time?

This may surprise you, but it is not illegal to lie on the internet or on network TV.

What the more rational, long-term minded creditors and collectors of the world are doing is creating the perception of an affirmative legal duty to report in order to get all of the benefits that come with it (better databases, better information) without any of the liability that attaches to creating such a duty (like those absurdities the Scrub referenced a few moments ago). The problem they have is that there is (probably) no good way to draft the laws to achieve this "all benefits for me, no liability for me" goal. So they lie and bullshit.

However, it simply doesn't have the same "oomph" factor to tell you "Sorry, Mr. Smith, we will not accept your PFD agreement because we have a contract with TransUnion and we believe in the sanctity of contracts". Instead, they just cite generic laws and hope you don't have a Bar License or know an attorney.

5. Okay Scrub! The BankRate guy you linked to earlier claims that a collection agent complying with a pay for delete is in violation of the FCRA. I understand your argument. However, the BankRate guy seems to know his shit too. Can you give me an example of where his statement might be correct, so that I may understand why he wrote what he did?

Sure.

Suppose you have the same hypo we discussed earlier (jet ski, bank, etc.). You go 180 days delinquent, the bank charges you off, and your FICO score drops a few million points. You offer a PFD letter. Instead of requesting total deletion of the account, though, you request that the lender reports you as "Paid in Full, Never Late". That is, clearly, inaccurate information and if honored would, in the Scrub's opinion, be in violation of the FCRA.

With that said, it is arguable whether this is even a true PFD agreement. Instead, it sounds more like the purchase of a positive tradeline, which is quite illegal, or simple bribery, which is also quite illegal.

The Scrub is not aware of the qualifications of the guy cited earlier, but the Scrub thinks he is confusing two very different concepts. Please note the distinction. PFD seeks complete removal of the account. The hypo offered by the BankRate guy sounds more like tradeline purchasing, or outright bribery, neither of which is recommended.

6. So, do creditors and collectors have to take a PFD agreement?

Of course not. They are free to chose whether or not to do so.

***

There you go. Hopefully, this will put this issue to rest once for all.

Government Touts Loss of Only $14 Billion from Auto Bailout

2011-06-01T13:46:00.004-04:00

It has been a while since the Scrub complained about the auto bailout. This has primarily been because the Scrub has been waiting to see what the end result would be.

Surprise! It sucks. To wit:

Obama touts only 14 billion loss on auto bailout.

The Obama administration said Wednesday that the government will lose about $14 billion in taxpayer funds from the bailout of the U.S. auto industry.

snip

"We cannot guarantee their success, and at some point they may stumble. But we've given them a better shot," Geithner wrote in an opinion piece in Wednesday's edition of The Washington Post.

"While we will not get back all of our investments in the industry, we will recover much more than most predicted, and far sooner," he wrote.

The Scrub sez:

Oh, that isn't too bad, right? Oh wait:

In a report from the president's National Economic Council, officials said that figure is down from the 60 percent the Treasury Department originally estimated the government would lose following its $80 billion bailout of Chrysler and General Motors in 2009.

The Scrub sez:

Yes, they spent $80 billion in 2009, back when the country could have used that money to do something worth a shit, and instead used it to bail out the whole auto industry and lose $14 billion.

No wait, that isn't quite right. The US did not bail out the "whole auto industry". They bailed out GM and Chrysler.

Remember that Ford turned down the bailout funds. Also note that Americans were gracious enough to Ford for not being corporate welfare hogs that Ford profits jumped considerably after their competition held out their hands for billions.

Also note the fact that GM is benefiting substantially from gaming the government subsidies for one of their vehicles, the tax credit for the Chevy Volt.

In contemporary America, we are so addicted to failure and incompetence that we proudly tout a massive loss on a government program like it is some sort of accomplishment. Then the mainstream press comes along to feed us all a nice shit sandwich, but tells it is an Italian Sub.

Is it any wonder why the economy is still in the shitter?

Getting an Original Creditor to Recall a Debt Sold to Collections is Difficult, Probably Not Worth the Effort

2011-05-31T09:00:00.003-04:00

The Scrub was recently asked about the likelihood of getting a charged off debt recalled from collections . Good question, one that he thought was answered on the site, but was not.

So here we go with the answering.

What does "recalling a debt" mean?

Recalling a debt is, well, let us break it down into a two-event timeline:

Event 1: The original creditor decides that you are probably never going to pay them, so they sell/forward the debt to a collection entity, followed by...

Event 2: You somehow convince them to buy the debt back from the collection entity in order to settle the account.

The Scrub has also heard it called "repurchasing a debt".

The original creditor can sell the debt to what is called a "third party collector" (3PC). The 3PC is usually a collection agency (CA) or a law firm that goes around buying up your debt.

Wait, people can buy my debt?

Yes, your debt is what is called a "negotiable instrument". People can buy it and trade it like an investment*.

Wait, why do law firms do this?

This may surprise you, but some attorneys are scumbags.

They have special skills that lower their overhead in debt collection...namely, they are able to sue you without having to pay extra for legal services like many creditors would. Normally, a small time bank, for example, would have to hire a firm to find you and sue you, which costs quite a bit. Attorneys don't have this problem.

As such, these firms take advantage of this special knowledge and exploit it for money. Specifically, they will often seek to obtain a money judgment against you to force you to pay them. One of their preferred ways to force you to pay them is to take their money judgment to your employer to garnish your wages.

So now that we have enough background to proceed to answer the question, let us proceed to answer the question. Proceed.

What is the likelihood of getting a charged off account recalled by the original creditor?

It is possible, but unlikely in most circumstances. It depends on the nature of the relationship between the original creditor and the collection agency.

The Scrub will now provide examples because he is, deep down, an asshole with a heart of gold:

Example 1:

The original creditor is a major health care provider. The collection agency is a division within the major health care provider. They handle collections solely for the original creditor. They are, essentially, owned by the same people, but are just two separate sub-units of the same entity.

In this instance, it may be possible for you to have the debt recalled, settle with the original creditor directly, and get the collection agency notation wiped away. The Scrub emphasizes, however, that this is unlikely and in some instances risky (like when dealing with a debt that is within the statute of limitations).

Example 2:

The original creditor is a major health care provider. The collection agency is a law firm that handles collections for hundreds of clients, one being your original creditor.

In this instance, asking the original creditor to recall is a waste of time, because they have already sold the debt and charged it off. For them to recall, they would have to call the collection agency and let them know.

What would that conversation sound like?

OC: "Dear CA, we want to recall the debt owed by Mr. Smith"

CA: "Why do you want to recall it?"

OC: "Because Mr. Smith is wanting to pay the debt off in full"

CA: (click)

OC: (wtf?)

CA: (dialing phone)

CA: "Dear Mr. Smith, we are filing suit against you for the amount of $X. If you wish to settle the debt in full, please contact us at 1-800-PAYORDIE. You may also go to www.payorwetakeyourkidsanddraintheirblood.com/bloodmoneypayment to pay on your account. Have a blessed day."

Not recommended.
__________

* ~~The Scrub learned all about that in a class called "Commercial Paper"~~ No, that is not quite right. Actually, the Scrub learned all about it from the outline he downloaded off the internet that he used to pass the "Commercial Paper" class.

What is the Difference Between a Wage Garnishment and a Deficiency/Money Judgment?

2011-05-24T22:52:00.002-04:00

Emailed question with a simple answer.

Deficiency Judgment aka Money Judgment:

In the world of credit and debt, a court awards whoever sued you (a bank, collection agency, sleazy law firm, etc.) a judgment when you lose a lawsuit for an unpaid debt. This is a piece of paper that says "Loser Debtor owes Scumbag Collection Agency $10,000, the court so orders". Period. You have now been adjudicated to owe the debt, for sure, no takebacks.

But Scrub! What if I never even heard of the debt and just ignored the papers? Do I still owe the debt?

Most likely, yes. You lost a lawsuit. You owe the money. This is regardless of whether you actually, in the "ultimate out-there-truth of the universe", owe the debt or not. In our world of "here is a room and here are our laws, what can we prove inside the room", you owe the debt.

That is why the Scrub tells you, emphatically, to get an attorney if you're being sued.

With that piece of paper, Scumbag Collection Agency may do all sorts of nasty things to you, wherever you live, in perpetuity. This because an unsatisfied judgment can last forever, like ~~herpes~~ the love of a fine woman.

Most obviously, with a judgment against you they can ruin your credit for a long time.

However, they may also decide that getting paid is important, so they might resort to all sorts of remedies that are authorized at the state level. One of these nasty remedies includes something called wage garnishment.

Wage Garnishment:

A process authorized by many states in which a judgment holder takes part of your working income to satisfy the amount of the judgment. The Scrub is pretty sure that all states that authorize garnishment have a set maximum percentage of your income that is garnish-able. Of the states the Scrub has examined, they each employ a complex formula to reach whatever dollar figure is garnish-able.

Not all states allow for wage garnishment of all judgments. The Scrub knows, off the top of his head, that North Carolina and Texas do not authorize it for simple consumer debts. Now the Scrub is going to Google that information to see if any others arise. Hold on.

Thank you Google. North Carolina, Texas, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina won't allow garnishment of wages for consumer debts. However, do note that even these pro-debtor states will still allow Sallie Mae or Uncle Sam to garnish your wages if you haven't paid your taxes since the Carter Administration or you borrowed $125,000 to obtain that degree in Advanced Incan Pottery and never bothered to pay it back with gobs and gobs of interest.

The Relationship Between a Judgment and a Garnishment:

In most (all?) consumer debt situations, Scumbag Collection Agency would have to get a judgment first, then go get a garnishment order against you.

In other situations, like the IRS coming after you, garnishment can occur without a court order. They just have their own internal procedures they use to say fuck you pay me. Like in Goodfellas:

Tomorrow TODAY YESTERDAY!!!!11! is Judgment Day, Prepare Accordingly

2011-05-20T15:05:00.004-04:00

No seriously, a whole bunch of religious lunatics (update: dead link, try this one) ~~seem~~ seemed to think that May 21, 2011 is was the end of the world.

The Scrub ~~laughs~~ laughed hysterically in the general direction of any of you deluded idiots gullible enough to believe any of ~~this~~ that bullshit.

If you actually ~~believe~~ believed any of it, please do yourself and the rest of the gene pool a favor and divest yourself fully from the material world that surrounds you. Do so RIGHT NOW. You may empty the contents of your checking account into the Scrub's donation button over here ----->

Meanwhile, the Scrub anxiously awaits the contortions these mendacious charlatans will exhibit once they have completely bankrupted their flocks and high-tailed it to a country with no extradition treaty with the US. Will the deluded followers suddenly realize they have been taken, once again, by ignorant bullshit? Or will they double down, say their calculations were "mistaken", and predict another round of bullshit in a few years?

As Promised, The Scrub's Take Down of Frugal for Life's Atrocious Credit Repair Letters

2011-05-19T13:49:00.007-04:00

Because no one demanded it, the Scrub has finally gotten around to thoroughly trashing the terrible credit repair letters offered by Frugal for Life discussed a few days ago.

Terrible Letter #1: Sample Letter to Remove Inaccurate Credit Report Information

Why this letter sucks:

It is simply an unnecessarily beefed up version of the FTC sample dispute letter with some added stuff about how the negative information is impacting your life (which is irrelevant).

The justification the drafter uses for including the "consequences" of the negative information is that, according to her, "The credit agencies give the most immediate attention to seriously wronged consumers"...which is utter bullshit.

The CRAs are required by Federal Law to investigate reported information that has been disputed by the consumer. They don't make a value judgment as to whether Consumer A has been harmed slightly more than Consumer B. The only value judgment they get to make is if the dispute is frivolous or not.

In fact, if any evidence were to exist that CRAs were making value judgments, it would be a violation of Section 623(a)(8)(e) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires them to conduct investigations of disputed debt with no mention of degrees of harm considered in such a requirement.

As such, the entire letter is a fucking waste. If you want a bland dispute letter, just use the FTC sample and be done with it.

Terrible Letter #2: Follow Up Letter to Initial Credit Bureau Contact

Why this letter sucks:

A. It contains the following "subject-verb agreement" error:

"As you are no doubt aware, failure to comply with federal regulations by credit reporting agencies are in serious violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and may be investigated by the FTC."

This doesn't even make sense grammatically. The actual subject (CRAs) is hidden in the prepositional phrase "by CRAs".

B. The lead-in paragraph advises you to "get increasingly threatening" with the credit bureau, but in the third paragraph of the letter she concedes that the CRA may have "misplaced" the letter. So which is it? Do you want to get threatening or accommodating?

Terrible Letter #3:Sample Cease and Desist Letter to a Collection Agency

Why this letter sucks:

A. No laws cited in the body of the letter.

Protip: if you're going to get pissy with a Collection Agency, you cannot just make generic references to "applicable Federal and State law". The reason for that is because it makes you look like you have no idea what you are talking about AND that you are a hothead prone to writing letters. If anything, this letter will invite more communication in order to get you pissed enough to acknowledge the debt or pay it off.

B. It makes reference to "a personal policy" of not dealing with collection agencies. ORLY? Well, since it is your PERSONAL POLICY then I suppose that the CA will honor your personal policy and walk away from the debt right?

Oh wait, no, they totally won't do that.

That is why you have to cite laws when you deal with Scumbag Collection Agency (specifically Section 805(c) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act), as in this clearly superior Sample Cease and Desist Letter.

C. It makes reference to "legal sanctions" under generic "Federal and State law". The problem with this is that it is up to you, the debtor, to force compliance with these mysterious, generic laws not referenced in the letter. You do that by filing a lawsuit, and to win said lawsuit you would need to actually point to a specific law that has been violated.

Terrible Letter #4:Sample Debt Validation Letter

Why this letter sucks:

A. It makes the following citation:

"Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 (b)"

The actual law is "15 U.S.C. § 1692(g)". The "Sec. 809 (b)" part is the same thing, just in a different citation format due to the difference between how laws are proposed versus how laws are codified once passed into law. This would be like listing your street address on a form, followed by the latitude and longitude coordinates. Dilettantish redundancy.

B. The letter includes a threat to take legal action, which should never be included in any letter unless you are serious about actually filing suit.

C. The letter includes a section that intends to operate as a Cease and Desist Letter. However, like the prior one, it makes no citation to any law that would move a collection agency to respect/adhere to the request.

D. The letter plagiarizes, at least in part, The Scrub's Sample Debt Validation Letter.

Evidence? You got it.

A:

Scrub:

"To Whom it May Concern,

I am in receipt of your letter dated (date you received their letter)."

Copycat:

"To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is being sent to you in response to a notice sent to me on (date)."

B:

Scrub:

"Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692(g) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), I am hereby giving you notice that I dispute the claims made in your letter and am requesting validation of this alleged debt."

Copycat:

"Be advised that this is not a refusal to pay, but a notice sent pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 (b) that your claim is disputed and validation is requested."

C:

Scrub:

"Understand that I am not requesting verification, but validation pursuant to the cited section of the FDCPA."

Copycat:

"This is NOT a request for verification or proof of my mailing address, but a request for VALIDATION made pursuant to the above named Title and Section."

D:

Scrub:

"Please provide me with evidence that I owe this debt, including, but not limited to:

1. The name and contact information for the original creditor

2. An accounting of the alleged debt

3. Proof that you are licensed and bonded to collect within the state of (your state)"

Copycat:

"Please provide me with the following:

What the money you say I owe is for;

Explain and show me how you calculated what you say I owe;

Provide me with copies of any papers that show I agreed to pay what you say I owe;

Provide a verification or copy of any judgment if applicable;

Identify the original creditor;

Prove the Statute of Limitations has not expired on this account

Show me that you are licensed to collect in my state

Provide me with your license numbers and Registered Agent"

Gee thanks for the citation back to where you got that language, dilettantish copycat lady!

The sad part is that she obviously plagiarized from some other DV letter too.

Terrible Letter #5: Sample Inquiry Dispute Letter

Why this letter sucks:

Disputing Credit Report Inquiries is a Waste of Time

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd now, I'm done with this lady, her shitty advice, and her crapulent plagiarism.

Thanks for reading, and God Bless America.

US Hits Debt Ceiling, America Now Has an Official Expiration Date

2011-05-17T16:43:00.003-04:00

This post was discussed in a more recent entry, The Scrub's Take on the US Default and Debt Downgrade Theatrics

-scrub

Well folks, the US has now officially hit the debt ceiling. Timothy Geithner, slimebag, is rearranging the deck chairs on the ship of state right now by raiding government employee pension plans in order to continue funding governmental operations...you know, important shit like blowing up Pakistan.

Meanwhile, the economy is still in the shitter.

Expiration date for the US, according to slimebag, is August 2, 2011.

The Scrub says horseshit.

This is an obvious political setup by slimebag and his mendacious band of thieves in charge of the economy. Around June 30th, we will be treated to "sudden, unexpected issues that have forced US Treasury to accelerate the official default date to July 15, 2011". There will be breathless media commentary by the shills that populate that medium about how both sides need to "come together and solve this issue".

There will be late night meetings at the White House, purely for show, trying to "hammer out an agreement to increase the debt ceiling".

And then, just in the nick of time, a compromise solution will be reached that cuts more governmental services for the poor and elderly, increases the US credit limit by a few trillion (just enough to cover the bill until next election cycle), and authorizes some sort of military campaign in yet another idiotic attempt at empire maintenance.

You see, folks, the government is bankrupt. Completely, utterly bankrupt. The money is no more. The US has financed an unsustainable lifestyle for the last several decades on borrowed funds. That may have been sustainable, had not the US also decided to outsource the manufacturing capacity to the third world in pursuit of temporary profits for the upper 1/10th of 1%.

Transitioning to a service economy is fine if you want to do that, but in doing so you also reduce your capacity to generate wealth. Services do not generate wealth. Services transfer wealth from one party to another. Manufacturing produces wealth from creative output. Glad to know that the idiots in charge of the country don't understand that point.