[An occasional series discussing recent movies in theaters or on DVD from an LDS perspective.  Other articles on strictly LDS movies can be found here]

Personal debt is an oft-referenced topic in the Church despite not having an obvious spiritual relationship to the plan of salvation.  One might wonder why avoiding debt is a spiritual issue at all—but if you hear that over half of divorces have ‘financial difficulties’ as a primary factor, then ‘avoiding debt’ turns into ‘making your marriage stronger—almost by default’…and the relationship between debt and the plan of salvation becomes clear. 

(See also D&C 29:34: "Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal…")

The documentary “Maxed Out”--now available on DVD--discusses debt on both a national and a personal level--sharing statistics about national trends, and stories about people deep in debt with seemingly no way out.  "Maxed Out" was created by James Scurlock--not to be confused with Morgan Spurlock of "Super Size Me" fame (although you have to believe a future partnership between the two is fated in the stars to happen someday...)

Here’s my analysis of the documentary and related thoughts on the subject of debt.

First things first: One should realize that “Maxed Out” is NOT an objective documentary.  Like many recent docs, it is written and organized from a ‘liberal/left-wing’ perspective—perhaps not to a Michael-Moore-level of propaganda, but still possessing an unmistakably clear agenda.

Bias in a documentary can be excused as long as it is still accurate. “Maxed Out” is accurate in general terms (and still makes many good, objective points) but glosses over—or skips entirely--a number of important key issues related to debt, which are notable by their absence.   Furthermore, it also has a number of 'propaganda-ish' sequences where viewers are asked to accept the filmmaker’s ideology without providing direct support for it with specific arguments or statistics.  (Indeed, it’s ironic that “Maxed Out” complains on one hand about credit card companies not sharing ‘the whole truth’ to its customers, while quite deliberately not sharing ‘the whole truth’ with viewers either about the true causes of the debt problem in America, or even recent law changes.)

The most obvious way to demonstrate "Maxed Out"'s bias is to do a direct comparison between its view of debt, and how LDS Church lessons usually discuss the subject.

The average General Conference talk on debt (see here or here for examples) has one basic point: avoid debt at all costs. This oft-quoted statement by Elder J. Reuben Clark is relevant:

Interest never sleeps nor sickens nor dies; it never goes to the hospital; it works on Sundays and holidays; it never takes a vacation; it never visits nor travels; it takes no pleasure; it is never laid off work nor discharged from employment; it never works on reduced hours. . . . Once in debt, interest is your companion every minute of the day and night; you cannot shun it or slip away from it; you cannot dismiss it; it yields neither to entreaties, demands, or orders; and whenever you get in its way or cross its course or fail to meet its demands, it crushes you.

“Maxed Out”, in fact, would agree with this statement completely…the difference is in tone. In a “Fences vs. Ambulances” kind of way, Scurlock's agenda is not to encourage people to avoid debt (although one can read between the lines and still find this lesson) but seemingly to encourage people to ‘forgive’ debt, with the blame for America’s debt problem placed entirely on the lenders—the people and corporations who gave the money to the 'victims'--without even paying lip service to anyone's responsibility to handle money wisely and avoid debt in the first place.

'Personal responsibility' as a solution to debt—or even as a subject at all--is avoided almost entirely in "Maxed Out", leaving one with the impression that credit card debt is something that just randomly ‘happens’ in people's lives one day out of the blue, like developing cancer. 

Many of the personal stories presented by “Maxed Out” are tragic and heart-breaking…but by and large preventable as well, and the documentary avoids exploring personal solutions in lieu of moving blame over to large corporations.

Some of the personal stories shown in the documentary, and their view of the debt problem:

#1:  One woman is shown in tears, lamenting that she can’t pay her bills and will probably lose her house. The camera pans out and we see a quick shot of her house...my wife and I then both remarked that her house was bigger than ours.  Hmmm…

#2:  Two moms share similar stories of their son/daughter going off to college and immediately racking up $12,000+ in credit-card debt.  After both students found themselves being unable to handle the payments, both hung themselves.

The films’ verdict: their deaths are the credit card companies’ fault for giving them so many credit cards in the first place.

Not discussed: the fact that these two students bought $12,000 worth of items and didn’t appear to understand that this was not ‘free money’—it was something they were going to have to pay back in the future. What did they think they were applying for, each of the 12+ times they filled out and sent in a credit card application?

(One of the moms shares her late son’s statement that, “I don’t know how I got into, nor how I can get out of credit card debt…”   Apparently, those credit cards snuck out of his wallet while he was sleeping and went on shopping sprees by themselves.  His mom notes that one of her son’s credit cards was for Neiman Marcus—so we’re not talking ‘necessities of life’, here…)

Scurlock's left-leaning bias is further shown in this segment, as we find out these two moms--spurred on by their children's suicide—helped testify for a bill regarding credit cards, and notes solemnly that they were opposed by the large credit card companies with bottomless pockets. (“The bill never had a chance…” one of them laments.)

What was the bill? A ban on college students receiving credit card applications. (Raise your hand if you believe taking credit cards away from ALL college students because a few of them don’t seem to understand how they work is an appropriate response…)   I can think of a number of reasons why this bill wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) have passed which have nothing to do with credit card companies’ deep pockets.  "Maxed Out" seems to take for granted that this law would have been good, moral policy and doesn't spend any time discussing or defending it further --one suspects Scurlock would feel the same way about banning guns.

The lack of any mention of personal choice is quite stunning.  Suppose, for a moment, we were talking about two 18-year-old college freshmen who died due to drug overdoses.  Usually--and we see this frequently in anti-drug ads now--the parent's main message is to encourage young people to 'stay away from drugs...don't end up like my son/daughter!'  Most surprisingly, neither of the two moms in this segment make *any* statement to the effect that young people need to 'be careful...and stay out of debt!', as debt will follow them forever per Elder Clark's statement above if they let it get a hold of their lives.  Instead, it's all about how it's someone else's fault.

[One note: I realize it is insensitive to ‘speak ill of the dead’ but “Maxed Out” appears to have deliberately chosen victims who committed suicide because of debt for dramatic--and tragic--value, despite the fact that these stories are obviously not representative of the average American’s experience with debt.  Scurlock also may have wished to preemptively head off the ‘personal responsibility’ card by choosing subjects who are no longer around to be second-guessed.   Nevertheless, if Scurlock and these victims’ families are going to use their stories to further an agenda on a national scale, then I believe analysis and criticism of the choices that led to their children's tragic suicides becomes a valid counter-argument.]

#3:  One Iraq War vet and his wife find out they don’t have enough money to pay for their truck, their trailer, and ‘all the other bills’ (their level of credit card debt is never revealed…neither is what kind of truck they own).   Bankruptcy is discussed as ‘the only way out’ (without revealing their finances, of course, we'll never know...)   This segment laments over the change in bankruptcy law in 2005.  And laments that some of the private company employees working in Iraq make a lot more than US soldiers (true, but completely irrelevant...we should note here that "Maxed Out" takes a number of irrelevant pot-shots at Pres.Bush and the Iraq War throughout its running time, further compromising the 'objectiveness' of the documentary).

The 2005 bankruptcy law changes receive a lot of focus in “Maxed Out”—although the film brushes over the actual details of what has changed.  Scurlock presents anecdotal examples of people just trying to get by who ‘need’ bankruptcy as a way out of debt.   And presents sound bytes from Congressmen (all Democrats, naturally) who oppose the bankruptcy legislation for ‘hurting the poor’…without mentioning any specifics as to why this would be so.  We also see a sound-bite of President Bush saying the changes are necessary due to "people abusing the system"--completely true, of course, and the film spends zero time discussing the relative merits of this claim.   Analysis of what percentage of people (poor and otherwise) were abusing the bankruptcy option as a means of getting things they wanted through credit, and then having the debt erased (i.e. whether the law changes were actually justified), is not on "Maxed Out"'s agenda...

[The details of the 2005 bankruptcy law change can be found here.  Basically, a requirement to attend financial counseling before and after bankruptcy has been added, as well as a ‘means test’ for Chapter 7 filings—where all debt is eliminated—instead of Chapter 13, where partial repayment is still required to creditors.  Also, filing bankruptcy no longer immediately stops court orders such as eviction proceedings, or divorces.  “Maxed Out” avoids any mention of specific changes in the law, nor presents any counter-arguments against these seemingly common-sense policies.] 

The implications of “Maxed Out"'s message seem to be condescending to the poor, in fact: 18-year-old college freshmen, for example, are old enough to vote and serve in the military, but (supposedly) are not mature enough to handle personal finance without a babysitter. They ‘can't help’ applying for credit cards when you put applications in their faces, and thus need to be protected from themselves.  Poor Americans (supposedly) just aren't smart enough to understand what 'interest' means, and what responsibilities taking out a loan (for whatever reason) entail.  The young and the poor must be protected from their own poor choices from predatory credit card companies who apparently make you apply for credit cards and buy things with them at gunpoint.

One segment (the first segment, ironically enough) is both effective, and free of the left-wing tilt--showing the direction a more objective documentary could have taken: we meet a man who shows us some of the ‘stupid’ things he bought from TV ads using his credit card, and later learn that his credit card company was engaged in fraudulent and deceptive behavior (exposed in a class-action lawsuit in 2000).

This segment works because it mentions--the only one that does--that people are using their credit cards for a variety of things, many of which are not related to day-to-day survival.   And, more importantly, it reveals actual illegal and unethical behavior by that particular credit-card company.  

The other segments of the documentary, however, resort to criticizing credit card companies for behavior that’s happens to be both legal AND ethical. (I mean, how DARE those large corporations try to collect money that’s owed to them by parties who willingly agreed to the transaction?  That's like signing a year-long cell phone contract and then complaining that 'large corporations' are mercilessly making you pay fees every month!)

Only the first segment actually shows a credit card company participating in illegal and immoral behavior (and one assumes this segment was placed first, in part so the other companies can become 'tainted' by association in the eyes of the audience throughout the rest of the film, even if illegal behavior by the rest of them is never directly stated).  

Much of the talk about how profitable the business of debt is to those large corporations--and how they don't really care in terms of the bottom line what applicants' income is, or whether they pay their debts on time or not--is, in fact, beside the point in many respects.  Credit card companies have a right to loan money to whomever they want.  They have a right to collect that money afterwards, including interest.  They have the right to charge fees for late payments.  We have the right not to borrow money from them if we choose.  Or, if we do, we have the right to expect them to live up to the terms of the contract, just as they expect us to live up to ours.  We do NOT have the right to borrow money, not pay, and then either complain that the lenders are treating us as if we owe them something, and/or wish for some magic process that will sweep our debts away.

"Maxed Out" provides very scant evidence that credit card companies are not, in fact, living up to their part of the bargain--it's after the lendee's can't live up to their part of the bargain that all of a sudden those companies are 'evil' for...just wanting their money.  Does anyone see a problem with this logic?

The anti-credit card company agenda of "Maxed Out" is clear, but what Scurlock believes we should DO about credit and debt in America is not: would the poor really be better off with LESS access to credit—if credit cards, pawn shops and check-cashing stores were blocked off to them?  This may avoid some of the personal situations shown in the film, but at the expense of creating a whole host of other problems where many struggling families have NO means whatsoever to pay for emergency expenses.

[Ironically, in decades past it was poor families having too LITTLE access to credit that was shown to be a major factor in remaining in poverty.  One of the hot trends in developing countries now is 'microcredit'—small loans to people in third-world countries (see discussion here), shown to be helpful for people--particularly women--in rising out of poverty.   Which creates an interesting contradiction if we are to believe that giving poor people greater access to loans and debt is actually worse for them then not allowing them to get into debt at all.]

I don’t believe Scurlock can make the case (nor, perhaps, was he trying to) that more opportunities for credit is worse for the poor than less, but if true, doesn't that imply that companies who loan money (and collect money) legally are part of the solution to poverty, instead of part of the problem?  After all, MOST people who take out loans and use credit cards from those same ‘evil’ corporations are able to handle their debts without resorting to bankruptcy and/or suicide.

In the Church, we discuss the laws of 'justice' and 'mercy' frequently.  Both laws, from an eternal perspective, are equally imporant--one cannot ‘rob’ the other (see Alma 42).  The ideas espoused by “Maxed Out” about easy bankruptcy—ironically presented as “social justice”—in fact are the epitome of 'mercy-only' policies.  Like the famous Church video about justice and mercy, where the person who owes a great debt asks his debtor if he believes in mercy, who replies: "Yes...but mercy is so one-sided.  It serves only you." 

Eliminating the option of bankruptcy would be bad policy--a case of justice robbing mercy.  But why should justice—in terms of allowing people to avoid the natural consequences of their actions—be discarded entirely in terms of financial policy? Adding restrictions and extra filing requirements is not inherently 'unmerciful', but seeks to balance the two--and if Scurlock has specific reasons for thinking bankruptcy changes are bad law (rather than just more 'inconvenient' for some than they used to be), that reasoning is absent from his documentary.

On a spiritual level, the Church has always fought against the tendency to 'sin now...and repent later'--an obvious spiritual parallel to credit card debt.   While the Atonement (filing for bankruptcy, in this parallel) allows those debts to be forgiven, the plan of salvation is still designed in terms of stewardship and responsibility.   The Atonement is not a 'get out of jail free' card allowing mankind to have fun first and then abandon their 'debts' later without consequence.   A wise financial system does the same: allowing both justice and mercy to be served.  "Maxed Out's" view of personal debt acknowledges the need for the latter, but ignores the former.