You don't know what the word means.
Complex ideas can be expressed in simple statements. It just takes knowledge and wisdom to unpack it.
As wikipedia likes to say . You are right they report usage. You are wrong that zero is bad. Look up how FICO works.
Depending on the card it may not matter. I haven't used my amex card in years and they don't seem to mind keeping it open. I have had other cards close due to inactivity.
Also with regards to the 3% charge rate, that is something that likely wouldn't go away, even if everyone went cash. Thing is, cash takes a lot of work to manage. You have to count it (*and account for it) secure it, get it to the bank, etc. If you look at a cash heavy place like a Las Vegas casino you can see the large amount of infrastructure they have in dealing with that. It isn't free. Turns out 3% isn't such a bad charge for not having to deal with that.
My parents ran a small business and they really didn't care for cash transactions. They took it, of course, and it was maybe 10% of their business. However despite not having 3% (or I think like 2.7% with their processor) shaved off the top, they prefered less cash because of the extra work. If they had a cash heavy day it meant having to cycle money out of the register in to the safe, potentially having to go to the bank to get more smaller bills/coins, and having to make bank runs more often per week. All the time spent doing that was time not spent doing something else for the business.
Cash costs money too, which is why most places don't really mind the credit surcharge. Cash might not have a direct surcharge, but there's a cost to dealing with it and the more you deal with it, the more it costs, just like the credit surcharge.
Also, in the rare occasion you do find a business that'll give you a discount for cash (contractors are often like this) you always have the option of using it. It isn't like Visa pays for goons to follow you around and force you to use your card.
You have no idea how it works, do you?
Debt collectors are nearly always separate companies. So what happens is you get way behind on a payment, the company you owe tries and tries to get money, but they fail. Finally, they just write it off. They then sell your debt to a debt collector. These debt collectors buy it cheap, usually 10% or less of the original amount. The company takes the loss and goes on with it. The collector then tries to get money so that they make a profit on the debt, and not a loss.
Companies do not want to sell a debt because there's no way they can sell it for what it is worth. They'd much rather have the money.
Student loans are a little different, since Sallie Mae does both loans AND collections, and student loans they offer are usually government insured (so they get their money no matter what) and you can't discharge student loan debt. Also they are a complete cluster fuck of stupidity since they are basically the worst combination of private enterprise and government agency (they were originally government, now private, but have something of a special status). They are currently under investigation regarding their practices.
Normal consumer debt though, they don't want you to default on. What they would like is that you run up a lot of debt and they pay it off slowly, paying a lot of interest, but pay it on time and completely. They would not like you to default.
Now I should note everything I'm going to say here applies to FICO credit score. Banks are certainly welcome to delve deeper and look at individual account performance and make a determination that way. So maybe, and there's no way to know this, the bank would evaluate that pattern more favourably when looking at the account and considering an upgrade to an unsecured account.
However for credit score what matters is (in order of importance):
--Payment history. Paying as agreed (meaning not more than 30 days late) is the biggest thing. Having no delinquencies, collections, defaults, etc is the prime thing. A long history of "pays as agreed" is what matters most.
--Debt burden, meaning how much you owe. For revolving accounts that is the amount of credit available vs the amount used. So having a number of high limit unused credit cards helps your score. For installment/mortgage accounts it is more about how much has been payed off.
--Length of credit history. The longer you've had a credit history, the better it can be. Also the longer you have specific accounts, the more they help.
--Types of credit. The more kinds of credit you've had, the better. This means revolving (like credit cards), installment (like a car loan), and mortgage. If you've multiple categories, that helps more than just having one.
--Credit inquiries. Each time you seek credit, it hurts your score a little for a short while. It isn't much and it doesn't last long, but is has an effect.
That's it. That's how it is calculated. Of those, payment history and debt burden are by FAR the biggest part. So if you have accounts that show you always pay as agreed, and you don't owe much, you'll have good credit.
As an example: I have a mortgage on my primary house, also a paid off mortgage on file since I refinanced (which is technically a new loan so the old one shows as paid off). I have a bunch of credit cards, probably $40,000 in credit, most of which don't get used, I got them because they offered a bribe and then never made use of them again. I have a primary card that I use for pretty much all purchases, and pay off in full each month. My credit score was 820, last time I checked.
The reasons are I have a perfect, lengthy, payment record, two kinds of credit, and I owe very little in relation to my available borrowing power. Hence, good score.
Also when I did a secured card, which admittedly was like 2 decades ago, I paid it off in full every month, and after the prescribed period, 6 months I think, they gave me an unsecured card no issue.
Just having one is sufficient. If you owe nothing on it, each month it'll be marked as "pays as agreed" on your credit report. Also it shows up as unused credit, which helps your score. Getting one and not using it works just fine. Having more than one and not using it works even better.
Its only eroded as socialism has advanced.
Fedex sent me to collections for a debt I didn't owe. Now I was very feisty with it and made sure to check that it didn't go on my credit history, but many people wouldn't. It was only $20. So maybe they just ignore it, it gets on the credit record. That would be "in debt collections" but wouldn't really reflect on the rest of my finances, it would just be something I decided to quit fighting.
There's a difference between someone with a small debt in collections because they don't agree they owe it and someone with a bunch in collections because they truly are financially underwater.
Whedon's quality issue with Avengers is the same one we find with Scott's "Prometheus", Aronofsky's "Noah", or Lucas's "Anal Excretions with Jar Jar Binx".
Too many SFX. I enjoy tech demos as much as the next person, but part of the charm of Firefly was that a low budget forced the team to focus on story, personality, and acting to do what they were trying to do with their special effects. It also forces the creative folk to manage a larger team -- which takes time away from the developing the "soul" of the project.
The alternative is letting radical islamists kill them without a fight.
Lets say I just started killing your family... lets say to protect myself I covered myself in babies. Literally strapped them to my body as macabre armor.
Are you going to shoot me? Baby killer. Punch me? Baby puncher.
The islamists are following no accepted rules of war. They've broken every portion of the Geneva convention and have broken rules older and more basic then that.
Violating ceasefires. Violating flags of truce. Violating parole.
Every time they promise anything they break it. No agreement matters to these people. No cease fire. No truce. No armistice. No treaty. No oath of honor. They're all violated the instant its convenient.
And then they strike as viciously as they can and when the israelis try to defend themselves they're accused of attacking civilians.
Well, who's fault is that? The side that keeps putting their weapons stockpiles IN schools, hospitals, Mosques, etc.
Again. If I wore armor made of screaming babies would you not try to stop me? Or would you let me do anything I want for fear of hitting a baby? Could I go on an unchecked murder spree forever in your mind?
And there is the crux of the problem: You. You don't know what you're talking about. It is people like you that enable the Palestinians to get away with this... that perpetuates this conflict.
Absent people like you... the ignorant and gullible... the Palestinians would have given it up or suffered large enough military defeats that they were unable to keep attacking.
Hamas and Israel both don't recognize their mutual rights to exist at the moment -- Hamas uses rockets and Israel uses bombs to demonstrate this.
At least Hamas is honest about its intentions.
I don't see it. I see the article as saying more that Hitler was horrible, and Bush is even worse than that.
The reason why Bush is worse is because Hitler meant well. That's what it says. That's what I am talking about.
It's a false dilemma to assume this means the writer thinks Hitler's dishonorable acts were ok
I never said that. I said that in comparison to Bush, he's not as bad, which is what you agree he said.
Of course, as pointed out by both smitty and I, the writer is factually wrong that Hitler meant well.
And I agree with that.
I find your mockery wanting
I find your understanding of it to be wanting.
and it is more likely to backfire and make the left stronger.
No, it's not.
Taking weak and cheap shots makes your side appear petty and unable to field a better argument.
Mocking the left for taking cheap shots, by pretending to take a cheap shot, is an actual cheap shot?
Will saves didn't exist under any of the editions he wrote.