Sounds like a good thing, right?

But it’s the misleading title of a 53-page bill the Florida Bankers Association has drafted and wants the state legislature to enact.

The new law would make it faster and cheaper for lenders to repossess property by giving them the right to foreclose without having to go to court and obtain the permission of a judge.

That isn’t a radical idea. Thirty-seven other states already have laws that allow for non-judicial foreclosures.

But calling it “consumer protection” is a positively Orwellian attempt to manipulate public policy through propaganda and misinformation.

This is a law that could put families out of their homes in as little as three months and leave them liable for any losses the lender incurs. It is truly a bill of the banks, by the banks and for the banks.

Joe Manausa, a Tallahassee real estate broker, has already asked the very relevant question, “Does The Florida Bankers Association Think You’re Stupid?” and started soliciting more honest names.

Among the suggestions already submitted are:

• The Florida Bankers Association Bill
• The “Florida Bankers Want To Remove Judges From Making Sure The Laws Are Enforced Fairly” Bill
• The “Banks Should Be Able To Foreclose If They Feel Like It” Bill
• The “Save the Banks” Bill
• The “Bend Over!!! Your Assets are Mine!!!” Bill

We can only hope that Florida legislators think long and hard before supporting this manipulative effort — no matter how much the banks have donated to their campaigns.

Click here to read more about the bankers’ bill on TampaBay.com.

You can borrow up to $25,000, and repay the loan in 36 equal monthly payments, with a fixed interest rate as low as 7.89% APR.

If you apply before Feb. 1, you’ll even receive a $100 credit to your account within 30 days of receiving the loan.

Just click here to qualify for this exclusive offer to Bankaholic readers. (Sorry, time’s expired on the bonus but you can still go to Lending Club’s home page to apply for a loan.)

Peer-to-peer, or social lending, allows investors to provide money directly to worthy borrowers.

By cutting out banks — the traditional and rather costly middle-man for most loans — investors can earn a greater return on their savings while borrowers pay less for the privilege of using that money.

Lending Club says its net annualized return for its investors has been over 9.5% since 2007 (including losses from defaults), and borrowers pay up to 30% less than they would for similar loans at traditional financial institutions.

The Web site charges a processing fee that runs from 1.25% to 4.25% of the amount you’re borrowing, which is subtracted from the loan proceeds prior to disbursement.

But there’s no application fee. So if you don’t get your money, you don’t pay a thing.

The online application process is fast — Lending Club claims it takes just 3 minutes — but you’ll need a minimum FICO score of 660 and maximum debt-to-income ratio of 25% (not including a mortgage) to qualify.

Applications are assigned one of 35 grades from creditworthiness (from A1 for the best credit to G5 for the worst) with the grade determining the interest rate.
Information about your loan (without your name, of course) is then posted for investors to review and fund.

Even if you have great credit, investors will only provide a portion of your loan — as little as $25 in some cases — to limit their losses if you default.

Don’t be surprised if it takes scores of investors to fully fund your loan.
That’s how the system works.

Lynne Curtain, one of these icons for ostentatious spending had been evicted from her Orange County, Calif., home over $12,000 in unpaid rent and damages.

Now the gossip site TMZ.com reports that a judge in Riverside County, Calif., has issued a bench warrant for Curtain and her husband after they failed to appear in court over $1.2 million they had been ordered to pay a former business partner.

Their excuse?

“I just sort of forgot to go because of the Christmas season,” Frank Curtain told Radar.com.

The bench warrant doesn’t mean cops are out to arrest the couple. It won’t become active as long as they remember to show up at another hearing before Jan. 27th.

But can you see my eyes roll from here?

I’m not a rich woman. I make a decent but not exorbitant living. I own a small house. I have some student loans to pay back but I also have modest savings that are growing.

How is it that little ol’ Jen Stryker can be worth more than these Bravo bitches?

Oh, that’s right. Because I live within my means.

It doesn’t matter the size of those means. I am within them: I bought a house I could afford, and I didn’t keep refinancing to use it as a bank. I chose a college with a tuition that wouldn’t put me over my head in debt. I continue to drive a late model Honda Civic with almost 100,000 miles on it.

Do I buy new things?

Sometimes. I probably spent too much at Loehmann’s last weekend. But all my furniture is used, and I still haven’t put new curtains on my windows because the ones that the previous owners left behind are just fine.

Is someone like me — or you, dear reader — supposed to feel sorry for these women? For someone who pays for a facelift when she can’t pay her rent? Or someone who kvetches about selling her cars and jewelry because she doesn’t have cash to pay her mortgage?

Am I callous to revel in their failure? Maybe.

But you won’t get any boo-hooing from me. This is their hole. They dug it. They chose to put the cameras in their faces.

I will watch them try to dig out, and hope that somewhere, the show serves as a lesson that living high on borrowed money does not make you wealthy.

Way too big, according to a new book by psychiatrist David Kreuger.

We use money to “alter our moods, increase our self-esteem, and control others,” Kreuger says. “We use money to try to soothe emotional pains and to buy the respect of others and ourselves.”

But, as your mom (not to mention the Beatles) always told you, money can’t buy you love.

Recognizing and overcoming that destructive behavior is what The Secret Language of Money: How to Make Smarter Financial Decisions and Live a Richer Life (McGraw-Hill, $25.95) is all about.

This makes Secret Language the right book for right now: An easy-to-understand financial guide for all of those Americans trying to restore some balance in their lives after pigging-out out on easy credit.

In Krueger’s view, millions of consumers unconsciously try to spend their way to happiness.

When we allow emotions like that to rule our financial lives, we wind up spending more than we make, falling for every scam and speculative bubble that comes along, and plunging into debt.

(For a great example of how this can happen, see our post “Real Trouble For Bravo’s ‘Real Housewives.’”)

He takes money emotions down to the biological level, not necessarily to show us that our brains are to blame (he doesn’t let you blame anyone for your actions except yourself), but how to overcome gut reactions to make sound financial decisions.

The book isn’t perfect, but you can’t argue with its core message.

We regularly see these outspoken women from Orange County, Calif., New York, New Jersey and Atlanta shoulder the burden of wealth as they frequent only the best shops, restaurants and spas.

But over the past year, at least a few of these icons for conspicuous consumption have run into financial problems.

One was thrown out of her million-dollar mansion in a foreclosure. Others have been through short sales and mortgage modifications, failing businesses and bad investments. A couple have even been evicted for falling behind in their rent (yeah, some of the homes you see on TV are leased).

Here’s Bankaholic’s unofficial tally of the Real Housewives who have gotten into Real Trouble over the past year:

Sheree Whitfield of Atlanta: Whitfield was banking on a big divorce settlement, which she didn’t get. When ex-hubby and former NFL offensive tackle Bob Whitfield stopped paying the mortgage on her house (which was in his name only) the bank foreclosed and kicked her out. The Atlanta Journal Constitution says the home sold for $1.1 million, less than half of what the Whitfields paid for it in 2000.

Tamara Barney of Orange County: When Barney and her husband met with a real estate agent they bragged about the $400,000 in improvements they made to their home. Yet they owed more than the house was worth and the Orange County Register reported that they recently had to part with it in a short sale.

Jeana Keough of Orange County: A real estate agent and owner of four homes, Keough has been short on cash since business dried up. Now Keough is selling her cars and watches and asking friends for loans. But she was luckier than Whitfield and Barney. After defaulting on the mortgage for her primary home, Keough told the Orange County Register that she got a loan modification. She also opted out of the show this season.

NeNe Leakes of Atlanta: The Atlanta Journal Constitution says Leakes was kicked out of her home in September after falling $6,000 behind in the rent. Leakes says that’s not true. She moved out on her own free will. Her husband, a real estate investor who might not be her legal husband according to some gossip rags, allegedly owes over $100,000 in back taxes, too.

Lynne Curtin of Orange County: This housewife and her family were booted out of their home over $12,000 in back rent and damages. Curtin’s husband blamed their financial problems on a few bad investments in — you guessed it — real estate. Remarkably, none of that stopped Curtin from having cosmetic surgery, paying for it from her “face lift” fund.

Teresa Guidice of New Jersey: Initial reports that Guidice and her family were losing their lavish mansion were wrong. But nj.com says lenders are foreclosing on a half-acre of undeveloped land Guidice bought about five miles away, claiming she still owes $127,500 on the property she bought for $170,000 in 2005.

It’s a free, six-part series of online videos produced by the Center for Consumer Law at the University of Houston Law Center.

I like them because each video is short (four to six minutes), to the point, and easier to understand than most written advice.

They cover topics such as “Managing Your Money,” “Credit Problems and Debt Collectors,” “If You Are Sued” and “Bankruptcy.”

In them, law professor Richard Alderman explains how to stop abusive calls from debt collectors, find legitimate credit counselors, defend yourself against lawsuits, file for bankruptcy and much more.

You’ll quickly see that Alderman isn’t one of those lending industry lawyers that create the indecipherable contracts and deliberately obtuse disclosure documents we routinely receive from credit cards and mortgage companies.

He’s on your side and can talk your language.

If nothing else, these videos will make it harder for you to be scammed or bullied by unscrupulous collection agencies, credit repair services and credit counselors that lie about their legal authority.

Some of the information is specific to Texas law, such as when Alderman talks about why debt collectors can’t seize most of your money and property even if they obtain a legal judgment against you.

But you’ll know to ask if your state offers similar protections — most do.

I just had a doctor overcharge me (twice) and keep the extra money until I figured out what happened.

First, I was charged a $40 co-pay for the consultation before a minor surgery.

The next week I was billed another $40 to pay for part of the surgery the doctor’s office said was not covered by my insurance company.

Then I hear from my health insurance company. It says my co-pay was $30 and it covered all but $30 of the additional cost.

Needless to say, I called the doctor’s billing rep.

She said the doctor overcharged me on the co-pay for the first visit and kept a $10 credit on my account. Yes, on purpose. Yes, without telling me.

The second bill was a mistake, but once again the $10 overpayment was credited to my account without any notice and without asking if I’d like a refund.

Twenty bucks might not seem like much, but this practice screams rip off.

If I hadn’t called them out on it, I’d have paid $80 and had a credit of $20 on my account that’s worthless since I don’t plan on seeing that dermatologist ever again.

It seems I’m not alone.

The Wall Street Journal says an optometrist asked Atlanta attorney Michael Gurion to pay $70 for an exam and contact lenses.

But months later, when Mr. Gurion received an explanation of his benefits from his insurance company, it said he should have paid no more than $25.

What was the doctor doing with the difference?

Holding it as a credit toward future services without telling Mr. Gurion, who wasn’t a regular patient and didn’t intend to return.

The Journal suggests this is part of a trend in which physicians are no longer waiting to be paid by insurers before they try to collect more than just co-pays from patients.

If they’re ultimately paid too much, the extra is not refunded — it’s credited to a patient’s account.

I’m sympathetic to doctors who have bills to pay, too.

But as a patient you’ve got to know your co-pay before going to the doctor’s office and question any request to pay more until your insurance comes through.

In most cases that’s because they’re underinsured. Their policies have such strict limits on how much the insurer will pay, that they’re left holding the bag most of the costs.

But insurers also reject 10% to 15% of what appears to be legitimate claims.

Insurance companies actually have computer programs called “denial engines” that review every claim, looking for reasons to turn it down.

In some instances, those rejections are based on technicalities, such as failing to obtain the insurer’s permission before a procedure, or filing the claim too late to qualify for reimbursement.

In other cases insurers deny claims because the care is deemed to be unneeded or experimental.

These kinds of arbitrary decisions must be challenged through the insurer’s in-house appeals process — a potentially lengthy and pretty much secret process that usually upholds the insurer’s original denial.

But in 43 states (and the District of Columbia) policy holders can appeal that final denial through state insurance commissions.

Patients win about half of those appeals, and if these state regulators say an expense should be covered, then it’s covered.

These commissions are not consumer advocates. They’re regulators and if you lie about your claim or dispute, they’ll come after you for insurance fraud.

But they all offer advice and information. If you need help or think your insurance company is trying to rip you off, they should be one of the first places you turn.

The National Association of Insurance Commissions has a Web site called InsureU that offers buckets of insurance information.

It can help explain options, plans, and get you familiar with industry lingo before filing a complaint.

That association also allows you to file a complaint about an insurer with your state commission.

The program will be open to graduates with one of the major types of federal student loans — Stafford, Grad PLUS or Consolidation loans made under either the Direct Loan or Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program.

You can have used the loans for any type of education, including undergraduate studies, graduate work or even job training. Parent PLUS loans and loans in default aren’t eligible.

To qualify, your federal student loan debt needs to be considered high in comparison to your income and family size.

To see if you might be eligible for the program, you can enter your salary, number of family members and current loan interest rate into the Department of Education’s Income Based Repayment calculator.

The calculator will estimate what your monthly payment would be under the program. If it’s lower than what your payment would be under a 10-year standard repayment plan at your current rate, it will tell you that you should be eligible for the income based program. To apply, you’ll need to contact your lender.

For example, if you’re single, make $30,000 a year and have a $25,000 student loan, your income-based payment would be $172 a month.

That’s a $116 savings over a standard 10-year repayment plan, which, with an interest rate of 6.8%, would give you monthly payments of $288.

If you have a family of four, make $50,000 a year and owe $20,000, your IBR payment would be $212 — compared to $230 on a 10-year repayment plan.

In the current economy, the program may be a huge help for recent grads who are earning less than they’d planned.

Another bonus: You can participate in the program for as long as you need to. In fact, if it takes you 25 years to repay your student loan debt under the income based plan, the government will cancel any remaining balance.

However, there is a catch. You’re essentially extending the repayment period of your loan — which means you’ll pay more interest over time.

If your monthly income-based payment doesn’t cover the interest that accrues each month, the government will pay it on Subsidized Stafford Loans for up to three consecutive years from when you start the program.

But after three years, the interest that accrues will be added to the principal, which is what your lender will use to calculate the amount of interest you’ll pay in the future if your income ever rises to the point that you’re no longer eligible for an income based repayment.

In addition, you have to submit income and family size documentation each year to reset your payment. If you don’t, it will automatically go back to the standard 10-year repayment amount.

Click here to find out more about the Income Based Repayment plan.

Bank of America, Discover and Citibank all said yes, offering settlements from 40 to 60 cents on the dollar. No arguing, no fighting, no asking to speak to a manager.

“They gave it up before I asked,” says Fred (who asked us not to use his real name so this wouldn’t become part of his Google legacy.)

This might sound preposterous given how the credit card industry has been treating its customers since the financial crisis struck — raising interest rates, slashing credit limits and even canceling the cards of customers in good standing.

But with 6.5% of all accounts at least 30 days late, it looks like banks are quietly trying to keep the recession from turning credit card defaults into the next mortgage mess.

Debt settlement is nothing new.

Reputable credit counselors routinely negotiate “debt management plans” with the credit card companies, which writes off about half of a creditor’s debt and establishes a realistic, 36- to 60-month repayment schedule to retire the balance.

But everything we’re seeing and hearing indicates there’s a sudden willingness on the part of credit card companies to strike such deals directly with their customers.

Customer service representatives have been empowered to settle debts and we’ve even heard that some cards are calling delinquent customers and offering to cut their debt in half if they’ll pay up.

These deals usually require cardholders to pay the remaining balance immediately. At most they’re given a couple of months to come up with the money.

The banks are being cagey on exactly who qualifies for such a settlement and how much debt they’re willing to forgive. But the American Bankers Association, their trade organization, confirms the general trend.