I was watching a video put out by the Federal Judiciary on the U.S. Courts site and was surprised when I saw they U.S. Courts listing debt settlement as an alternative to bankruptcy.
The list also includes credit counseling, working with creditors (reduction in payments), and selling assets or debt consolidation loans to satisfy debts.
What struck me is that logic would say that outside of bankruptcy any approach that allows a consumer to address their situation is a potentially valid approach. Yet credit counseling groups continue to slight debt settlement and not embrace it as a viable and possible solution at the detriment of the very consumers they purport to assist.
The attack on debt settlement by credit counseling has become so embarrassing that credit counseling appears to be clearly doing the consumers they are supposed to serve, a disservice. They may be offering up more harm than good at the hand of the creditors that guide them.
The U.S. Courts video just drove that point home for me. If settling debts is a viable solution recognized by the U.S. Courts, along with credit counseling, then why is credit counseling attacking debt settlement or dismissing it as a viable option in some situations?
I understand the point there were many debt settlement entities that did not offer a well structured product or good customer service, but the criticism of those companies was not about the premise of debt settlement but the way they sold it and collected advanced fees.
Credit counseling needs to get real about all of the solutions that consumers need to get out of debt and not shield consumers from knowing the truth about each and/or evaluating consumers fairly for each possible solution to give a fair and balanced charitable service.
You can watch the full U.S. Court bankruptcy video below.