The Secret Is Out (What the credit card companies don’t want you to know)

Well friends, here is something the credit card companies don’t tell you. Do you know that each time you apply for a credit card, it has a negative impact on your credit rating? It does my friends. And that’s regardless of whether you actually get approved for the card or not. Let me share with you the story of how I became enlightened to this fact:
My girlfriend has the unfortunate circumstance of having less than perfect credit. Without going into too much personal details, she cosigned a loan for her ex-husband who in turn defaulted on the loan, which of course damaged her credit as well. Since this, she has applied on occasion for a credit card, only to be denied. Okay, fair enough -actually it’s not fair at all because it wasn’t her fault- but I’m not here to argue whether the credit card companies could have approved her for a credit card with a small line of credit to get her back on the road to good credit or not. I’m here to share with all of you what lead to my confrontation with the credit card company and their disclosure to me that applying for too many credit cards hurts your credit rating.
After pretty much giving up on credit card applications, my girlfriend received in the mail one day an offer for a "pre-approved" credit card from one of the major credit card companies. Well, you can imagine her happy surprise at this "generous" offer by Chase. She filled out the application and sent it back in the postage paid envelope. A few weeks later, she received the discouraging response in the mail that she was in fact not approved for a credit card due to her less than perfect credit. Well, needless to say, her and I were both quite angry and offended that Chase would send a pre-approval offer if in fact they could not follow through. I sent a rather uncomplimentary letter back to them and voiced my deep dissatisfaction with them. The letter I received in response stated basically that they send these mass mailers out to potential customers, but it is only after the person responds to the application that they investigate their credit history and approve or deny based on their findings. My question, which was never satisfactorily answered is this: Why do they state "pre-approved" on the offer if they can’t guarantee a credit card.
Well anyway, several weeks went by and one day what should appear in our mailbox but another offer for a "pre-approved’ credit card from Chase. Now I was completely indignant. I called the toll free number and asked to speak to the highest ranking person I could possibly speak to. I was transferred to a customer service manager. I told him that it was an insult added to injury that the credit card company would send my girlfriend a second offer only weeks after rejecting her application. I mean, didn’t the right hand know what the left hand was doing at the credit card company? He gave me the same explanation that I received in the above mentioned letter. These are mass mailings that go out to thousands of people. I asked why they could not "flag"in their system the people who had previously been denied credit cards to ensure they are not sent these mailers again. Well, that is just not the way it’s done, that would result in the loss of too many potential customers (read cash cows) for the credit card companies. Hello, who’s credit is going to be restored to it’s pristine condition in just a short time anyway? I also took issue with the gentleman that my girlfriend had never given her permission to be put on their mailing list or received compensation from the entity who sold the list to the credit card company. She’s off that mailing list now, folks!
Now to get to the whole issue at hand, and a word to the wise is sufficient, my friends. This kind gentleman at Chase informed me that every time you apply for a credit card, it has a negative impact on your credit, regardless of approval or denial! When I explained to him that I had never heard of that before, he said it is the public’s responsibility to educate themselves about how credit works. Excuse me, but firstly: who has the time? Secondly: how would anyone even know to ask a question like that or research it on the web? You have to know a little something about a topic to even know the right questions to ask. I appealed to him that I felt the credit card companies should feel a sense of responsibility to inform the public about this fact. His response again was that we needed to educate ourselves on these matters and that the credit card companies are in business to make money. Well friends, they are indeed making money, in part due to our ignorance. You see, they have a vested interest in keeping us ignorant because the potential loss once we become better educated about these matters is detrimental to their bottom line.
How many times have you sent a credit card application in only because you received it in the mail and even though you already have one or more credit cards? Most people do just that, after all, it’s a postage paid envelope so it doesn’t cost me anything right? Well, now we know the answer is a big WRONG! It does cost us something, our credit rating.
Friends, if the credit card companies are not going to step up to the plate and take the moral high ground, I will. That is why I am circulating this email and posting it on several blog sites and sending it to news papers to be published in their "letters to the editor" section. Next time you get a "pre-approved" mailer from the credit card companies, simply rip up the application and send it back to them in their own postage paid envelope along with a little note that you wish to be removed from their mailing list or else compensated by whoever sold your name and demographic information to them. While your at it, see if you can stuff a few more things in the envelope to make the return postage higher. Our friends at the credit card companies can afford it.

Capitalism And Socialism Cannot Coexist Indefinitely

I believe the problem with our government is that it is trying to utilize two different economic systems that mix together about as well as oil and water: capitalism and socialism. We claim that we are a capitalist nation with an economic system based on free enterprise and supply and demand. Yet, the government’s excessive taxation of both business and individuals is reducing the amount of capital to be invested in the free market system and spent on products. And it’s not just the obvious taxes that we all can see, such as income tax and sales tax, etc. It is also the hidden taxes imposed on us in the form of fees and required expenditures such as auto insurance and annual auto inspections. Now, I don’t deny the necessity of these things, but the fact remains that these mandated expenditures leave us with less discretionary capital upon which a capitalist economic system requires to function properly.
I am not here as an advocate of either economic system. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. My sole purpose here is to challenge the government to choose one or the other. If our government feels the need to tax and regulate it’s citizenry to the burdensome degree that it presently is, then I suggest it goes ahead and confiscates the remainder of our earnings and reserves and provide us with housing, food, clothing and medical care. After all, if all of our necessities are met, we really don’t need much discretionary cash. Maybe the government can give everyone an allowance based on our earnings that we can use as we see fit.
I question how much the politicians would care for that idea since in the long run it would probably increase their accountability to us and allow them less freedom to use our money on their own lavish lifestyle with their high annual income (a rate of pay that the average citizen will never achieve), and their annual cost of living increases ( an increase that the average citizen does not get, or if they do it is usually surpassed by the increase in their medical insurance premiums), and their nice perks. No wonder most politicians have lost sight of the plight of the average citizen. Yes, it’s only lip service when they tell us they understand our situation. How can they? They are so far removed from us in so many ways. In my younger days, I used to believe that at least individually, most politicians really had our best interest at heart, but they were limited in what they could do by the deeply entrenched political machine. When I would get in debates with friends and family members over political issues, I would defend the politicians and explain that they were doing the best they could within the parameters of a system that admittedly runs pretty slowly and with many roadblocks. In retrospect, I realize that my friends were much more enlightened than I was. My naivete back then is now quite apparent and I have thankfully come to join the ranks of those who are not so easily deceived.
I believe if individual politicians really do have our best interest at heart, there are a few things they can do as a token to us that they are sincere. And these things do not require committees and hearings and votes. They can refuse to accept the many perks that come along with their exorbitant salaries, like a pension plan that many corporate officials don’t even get. They can also refuse to accept pay increases and even give back some of their pay to the people they robbed it from. Folks, it’s not going to happen.
So, if the government does not want to care for us from cradle to grave, then I believe congress should seriously cut taxes and stop their uncontrolled spending and let the free enterprise system work.
As it is now, neither system is utilized to it’s full potential and we suffer for it. Big businesses pass the burden of government taxation and fees onto us in the form of higher prices, job layoffs due to downsizing and restructuring, or even completely closing down or moving to other countries in search of cheaper labor. And small businesses which can no longer compete, due to the governments burdensome taxation and the competition of their larger counterparts end up selling out to those huge conglomerates which then corner the market because they have the financial resources to buy congresspersons. This type of free enterprise also fosters a sense of dehumanization because it reduces people to objects instead of human beings. The small, local business owner who knew his or her clientele personally and treated them like a friend has now been replaced by large corporations which do not offer that kind of personal service.
The final result of a government that tries to function with these two mutually exclusive economic systems is that the average American, is stuck in a position where it is very difficult to attain any real financial progress due to such burdensome taxation and fees, yet most of us still earn too much to qualify for any financial assistance from
the government. This leaves us with a feeling of resentment toward a government that robs us of so much of our livelihood and then leaves us to struggle to make ends meet. Then to add insult to injury, the rising cost of products due to the effort of businesses to recover from their own victimization from government plundering leaves us struggling even more to survive. In addition to resentment, many are left with a feeling of despair and hopelessness.
Now, all this is not to give the impression that I am completely against any type of regulation on business. In fact, in some ways I think there isn’t enough. For example, I recall the days when radio station ownership was much more limited than it is today. With deregulation, corporate radio has pretty much put small locally owned radio stations on the endangered species list. The result is that radio programming has lost much of it’s creativity and distinctness and the format choices offered to listeners in any given market are severely reduced. The same applies to many other types of industry in America. But, while regulation and ownership restrictions in a quantitative sense are good and promote competition and higher levels of consumer choice, regulation need not be accompanied by such high taxation and fees. It’s the high level of taxation and mandated expenditures enforced on business that stifles free enterprise and leads to the decrease in small business and the increase in large mega corporations with the resulting dehumanizing effect mentioned above.
So, while small businesses struggle to survive and many fail, government grows and continues to be insulated and indifferent to the plight of the rest of us. Your congressperson is not concerned about the rising cost of gasoline or food products. They will always be able to afford what they want because they can always increase our taxes and fees to sustain their standard of living. I doubt that anyone in congress has ever had to cancel a vacation in order to be able to pay a utility bill or buy groceries. I’m also quite sure they never had to choose between buying food or paying for medical care. Tell me, how can we honestly believe they have our best interest at heart?
Again, my challenge stands. Mr. and Ms. Congressperson, either assume responsibility of providing for all our basic necessities, including medical care and employment, or refrain from taxing us at such a high and unfair rate and reduce government spending. Learn to control your spending like the rest of us have to do! You know us. We are the people you were elected to serve. Well choose the form of service you plan to provide us and choose now. Either provide completely for us with the money you have taken from us, or let us keep our money and care for ourselves without your interference! I for one hold you in contempt as I imagine Thomas Jefferson himself would if he were living today.