PDA

View Full Version : 18 Dems break ranks on bankruptcy reform


NewChief
03-11-2005, 10:22 AM
From salon:

Eighteen Democrats make a choice



The U.S. Senate approved the almost universally unpopular bankruptcy reform bill last night, and -- thanks to the support of 18 Democrats -- the White House and the Republicans on Capitol Hill can proclaim it a triumph of bi-partisan cooperation. While you're writing the check for the minimum payment due again this month, your credit card company will be writing thank you notes to Democratic Sens. Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Jeff Bingaman, Robert Byrd, Tom Carper, Kent Conrad, Daniel Inouye, Tim Johnson, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, Harry Reid, Ken Salazar and Debbie Stabenow.


Just thought I'd throw this out for discussion. Two of the Dems are from my state.

Chief Henry
03-11-2005, 10:25 AM
Why did the article call it "universally unpopular" ?

NewChief
03-11-2005, 10:27 AM
Why did the article call it "universally unpopular" ?

It's from salon.com, so it's left-biased.

That being said, it is a pretty unpopular bill for most people.

Simplex3
03-11-2005, 10:27 AM
If it's so "universally unpopular" then why did so many Senators vote for it? Won't that get them un-elected next time around? I love it when "journalists" (term used VERY loosly) throw in crap like that which can't be substantiated or quantified but sounds good...

NewChief
03-11-2005, 10:31 AM
If it's so "universally unpopular" then why did so many Senators vote for it? Won't that get them un-elected next time around? I love it when "journalists" (term used VERY loosly) throw in crap like that which can't be substantiated or quantified but sounds good...

It's from the War Room on salon, which is a leftist report of developments.

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 10:33 AM
Salon.com is owned by George Sorros... the MoveOn.org prickface.

That should tell you all you need to know, right there.

Chief Henry
03-11-2005, 10:34 AM
Salon.com is owned by George Sorros... the MoveOn.org prickface.

That should tell you all you need to know, right there.



I always wonder'd who owned Salon. It figures :rolleyes:

Taco John
03-11-2005, 10:36 AM
It's nice not having credit card debt.

NewChief
03-11-2005, 10:41 AM
Salon.com is owned by George Sorros... the MoveOn.org prickface.

That should tell you all you need to know, right there.

I wasn't aware Sorros owned it. Do you have a link for that? Here's the history I was able to dig up on it. It doesn't mention Sorros anywhere in it:
http://www.answers.com/topic/salon-com
Salon.com

Screenshot of Salon.comSalon.com is an Internet-based media company founded in 1995 by editor-in-chief David Talbot and several other colleagues from the San Francisco Examiner. Though providing several services, it is best known for its online magazine, with content updated each week-day. Its headquarters are located in downtown San Francisco, California.

Salon's magazine covers a variety of topics. American politics is a major focus, but by no means the only one. It has extensive reviews and articles about music, books, and films. It also has articles about "modern life" in all its forms, including relationships and sex. It covers technology, with a particular focus on the free software/open source movement.

Salon covers all of these issues from an unabashedly liberal political viewpoint, though has featured regular columns from such conservatives as David Horowitz and Andrew Sullivan.

Its online subscription-only discussion boards, Table Talk and The WELL, are quite popular.


History
As one of the earliest and most prominent web-only media outlets, Salon.com's history is reflective of the difficulties in creating a profitable business selling original, professionally-produced media content over the Internet. On June 22, 1999, Salon.com IPO'd on the NASDAQ stock exchange. Though dot-com speculation had not yet reached its peak by then, the performance of Salon.com's stock was mediocre, reflecting investor skepticism about its business model.

Such skepticism would soon be confirmed as Salon.com announced ever-increasing total losses. On November 13, 2002, the company announced it had burned through nearly $80 million in capital. By February 2003 it was having difficulty paying its rent, and made an appeal for donations to keep the company running. This seems to have succeeded in staving off a discontinuation of services, as Salon.com is still operating as of mid-2004.

Salon.com is still in a precarious financial position, despite having signed over 50,000 subscribers. Its stock has been delisted from the NASDAQ exchange and currently trades as an over-the-counter penny stock for several cents a share.

Below is an overview of Salon.com's business model and operations, ordered by advancing date:

free, around 10 new articles posted per-day, revenues wholly derived from in-page advertisements
per-day new content significantly reduced
voluntary yearly subscriptions offered, with Salon.com-branded gifts as inducements
ads removed from pages served to paying subscribers, enlarged for all other users
subscriptions made mandatory, with a free "day pass" available to readers who view a 15-second full-screen advertisement as well as banner ads.
On October 9, 2003, Michael O'Donnell, the chief executive and president of Salon Media Group, said he was leaving the company after seven years because it was "time for a change." When he left, Salon.com had racked up $83.6 million in losses since its inception, and its stock traded for 5 cents on the over-the-counter bulletin board. David Talbot, Salon's chairman and editor-in-chief at the time became the new chief executive. Elizabeth "Betsy" Hambrecht, Salon's CFO, became the president.


Books published
Moses, Kate (editor). Mothers Who Think: Tales of Real-Life Parenthood (2000). ISBN 0671774689
Miller, Laura (editor). The Salon.Com Reader's Guide to Contemporary Authors (2000). ISBN 014028088X

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 11:18 AM
http://google.com

use it

NewChief
03-11-2005, 11:25 AM
http://google.com

use it

I did, and there's nothing that links Soros to salon.com. Personally, I think you're talking out of your ass.

BIG_DADDY
03-11-2005, 11:32 AM
BIG MONEY, BIG SURPRISE. not

Amnorix
03-11-2005, 11:33 AM
I did, and there's nothing that links Soros to salon.com. Personally, I think you're talking out of your ass.

In other news, the sun rose in the East this morning.

Amnorix
03-11-2005, 11:34 AM
I was more or less ambivalent about the bill. There were elements I supported however.

I would have been a bit happier if there had been a carve out for major medical expenses, which cause a significant number of bankruptcy filings. I don't think that one made it into the final bill.

But still, not a terrible bill by any means, IMHO.

Cochise
03-11-2005, 11:41 AM
I dont know if this bill is the right way to do it, but I think bankruptcy protection should be harder to get. There are plenty of people out there who run up credit bills knowing full well that they will never pay and will file for bankruptcy. I think we'd all be better off if credit wasn't as easy to get and massive personal debt wasn't so common place.

There are some who geniunely need it, say if you're bankrupt because of medical expenses or something, which is probably the number 1 reason. But if you're just financially irresponsible IMO you ought to have to pay up.

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 11:42 AM
In other news, the sun rose in the East this morning.

Yeah, and you can go f*ck yourself, libbie 4321


NewChief - Soros does not own Salon.com... my mistake. David Talbot is the CEO of the parent company Salon Media Group, Inc. I could have sworn Soros was the primary agent behind their little leftist wing, but it appears not. Their main bankrolling has come from multiple sources, none of which point to Soros directly.

Cochise
03-11-2005, 11:42 AM
BTW if it means anything, I saw both CNN and CBS do a hatchet-job on this bill last night, so I pretty well knew how the vote was going to turn out.

Baby Lee
03-11-2005, 11:48 AM
Anyone see Krugman on TDS last night? I think that, as he parades these guys through the show, Jon is becoming increasingly disheartened.
He was railing against the bankruptcy bill, and that was fine. Then they spoke of SS privatization, and Krugman said "this is everyone's mothers and fathers we're talking about. the Democrats should be saying words like 'cat food.'

Silence

A 'WTF, where are you? 1996?' stare from Jon.

A nervous giggle from Krugman.

Jon turns to camera, says "Mom? . . . you. . . you won't have to eat cat food."

NewChief
03-11-2005, 11:49 AM
Yeah, and you can go f*ck yourself, libbie 4321


NewChief - Soros does not own Salon.com... my mistake. David Talbot is the CEO of the parent company Salon Media Group, Inc. I could have sworn Soros was the primary agent behind their little leftist wing, but it appears not. Their main bankrolling has come from multiple sources, none of which point to Soros directly.


Aha! Danke. Don't like people giving me the old "learn to use google" reply. Especially after I'd just used google and spent 15 minutes of my lunch break researching it.
;)

Amnorix
03-11-2005, 11:52 AM
Yeah, and you can go f*ck yourself, libbie 4321


NewChief - Soros does not own Salon.com... my mistake. David Talbot is the CEO of the parent company Salon Media Group, Inc. I could have sworn Soros was the primary agent behind their little leftist wing, but it appears not. Their main bankrolling has come from multiple sources, none of which point to Soros directly.

ROFLROFL

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 11:57 AM
Aha! Danke. Don't like people giving me the old "learn to use google" reply. Especially after I'd just used google and spent 15 minutes of my lunch break researching it.
;)


hehe, again, apologies. I did the same thing... even checked the venture capital sites; could have sworn I read/heard Soros was a big player for them. Guess not. :shrug:

BIG_DADDY
03-11-2005, 12:05 PM
Banks, credit card companies and insurance companies rip you at every turn. I am surprised so many of you support them. What about all the small business men who have to leverage themselves to start up? I guess they should spend the rest of their lives paying back the banks while the banks are never held accountible for making bad loans. Amazing, I gotta tell ya.

Ash
03-11-2005, 12:28 PM
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

More than half of bankruptcys in the U.S.. are caused by medical bills.While this bill screws middle america there are still loop holes for the wealthy like being able to keep your home no matter how much the house is worth.Sometimes I feel like the goverments just trying to sell are lives out from underneath us. I am disappointed in the dems on this bill.

Ash
03-11-2005, 12:33 PM
Banks, credit card companies and insurance companies rip you at every turn. I am surprised so many of you support them. What about all the small business men who have to leverage themselves to start up? I guess they should spend the rest of their lives paying back the banks while the banks are never held accountible for making bad loans. Amazing, I gotta tell ya.

It will definately stifle the small startup business.the credit card companies basicly wrote this bill they have been trying this for like 10 years. I am paying off the small balance on my credit card this month. I am not making any purchase I cant pay off in the same month.

BIG_DADDY
03-11-2005, 12:59 PM
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

More than half of bankruptcys in the U.S.. are caused by medical bills.While this bill screws middle america there are still loop holes for the wealthy like being able to keep your home no matter how much the house is worth.Sometimes I feel like the goverments just trying to sell are lives out from underneath us. I am disappointed in the dems on this bill.

I am disappointed in everyone, what a bunch of sellouts. This will fuel unemployment and the black market which of course will fill up our jails and guess who gets to foot the bill for that?

HC_Chief
03-11-2005, 01:11 PM
:hmmm:
I would think the dems would be for this bill - it requires persons who make more than the median income for their area of residence repay a portion of their outstanding debt. It closes a bankruptsy "loophole".

jettio
03-11-2005, 03:05 PM
Credit card companies should not be allowed to enforce debts that end up having an effective apr that would violate usury laws. They solicit people to death to take out a credit card with them, and do everything they can to get them in in over their heads and then assess late fees and overlimits out the wazoo.

If someone goes into bankruptcy, the credit card companies should not be allowed to collect late fees and over the limits, just the credit card apr agreed to by the cardholder initially applied to the debt due to actual purchases.

Our country is really getting flipped over.

Credit card companies create the current crisis knowing full well what the bankruptcy laws have been for the last generation and after they have surrepitously changed the usury laws in most every state, now they want to change the laws so that they can totally mindf*ck the poor sap that they suckered into taking out a credit card that they could not afford by garnishing their wages to death.

Government is becoming the tool of the unscrupulous to take advantage of people that are not as smart or as cold-blooded, and it is primarily because people are too far removed from the days that the anti-shylocking laws were passed to remember why they were passed.

Sure people should be smart enough not to get in over the heads with the shylocks, but the shylocks have now set it up so that they can use the courts to be their enforcers.

That is way f*cked up.

The pressure that this stuff is going to put on people is going to lead to a lot of people doing a lot of tragic things.

Cochise
03-11-2005, 03:10 PM
It doesn't have a damn thing to do with bankruptcy laws. The Republicans are for it so the Dems are against it. That's about the size of their position.

Ash
03-11-2005, 04:41 PM
It doesn't have a damn thing to do with bankruptcy laws. The Republicans are for it so the Dems are against it. That's about the size of their position.

this bill will affect republicans to. Im sure that the 50 percent of people who file because of medical bills are not all dems.This bill screws your avg Joe Shmoe american, regardless of political leanings.18 dems were for it and shame on them all to.

memyselfI
03-11-2005, 05:07 PM
:hmmm:
I would think the dems would be for this bill - it requires persons who make more than the median income for their area of residence repay a portion of their outstanding debt. It closes a bankruptsy "loophole".

Dems, like myself, see there are abuses and wish to see those ended...but throwing the baby out with the bath water is wrong.

For instance I don't think people who have gambling debts or excess credit card debit (example: double or triple their income) should be allowed to file for bankruptcy especially repeatedly. Those are the type of 'loopholes' that should be closed.

But, it seems they closed holes that they claim regular joes used and abused while they simutaneously did NOTHING to close big business loopholes AND in a shitty of shitty moves struck down the part of the bill the Dems were trying to add which made it illegal for bankrupt companies to pay bonuses to CEO's and management of those companies.

:banghead: :shake:

the Talking Can
03-11-2005, 06:09 PM
anyone voting for that bill should be thrown in jail....what a ****ing joke

Boozer
03-11-2005, 09:58 PM
First of all, let me say I haven't read this bill and thus am not qualified to speak on its merits. However, I pay my taxes, vote, and am registered for the draft, so I’m certainly entitled to speak my mind on the general topic of bankruptcy “reform.”

Second, I've previously heard complaints about people abusing the bankruptcy system by running up credit card debt with the intention of filing bankruptcy. While I'm sure this happens from time to time, I'm not convinced it happens on a level that America should bother changing it's laws to prevent it. I'd be interested if anyone has any empirical data suggesting that this phenomenon is a problem.

Third, I doubt that creditors' benefits from this bill will be passed on in any way, shape, or form to consumers. If the usual rate drops down to 16.9%, you can say I was wrong.

Finally, I don't like how some criticize the bankruptcy system as an outlet for financially irresponsible people. Again, I'm sure this is the case some times, but many people who avail themselves of Title 11 are not immoral, rather, they're simply people who are in an unimprovable position. Many good people file for bankruptcy. Banks and other creditors knew what the rules were when they made these loans or extended credit, they shouldn't be allowed to change the rules and reap the benefit to the detriment of ordinary Americans.

WilliamTheIrish
03-11-2005, 10:02 PM
I'm so glad that with real unimportant stuff like immigration going asshole over teakettle, the Senate took on the absolutely critical issue of f*cking people over.

I know I can sleep better.

the Talking Can
03-12-2005, 06:25 AM
First of all, let me say I haven't read this bill and thus am not qualified to speak on its merits. However, I pay my taxes, vote, and am registered for the draft, so I’m certainly entitled to speak my mind on the general topic of bankruptcy “reform.”

Second, I've previously heard complaints about people abusing the bankruptcy system by running up credit card debt with the intention of filing bankruptcy. While I'm sure this happens from time to time, I'm not convinced it happens on a level that America should bother changing it's laws to prevent it. I'd be interested if anyone has any empirical data suggesting that this phenomenon is a problem.

Third, I doubt that creditors' benefits from this bill will be passed on in any way, shape, or form to consumers. If the usual rate drops down to 16.9%, you can say I was wrong.

Finally, I don't like how some criticize the bankruptcy system as an outlet for financially irresponsible people. Again, I'm sure this is the case some times, but many people who avail themselves of Title 11 are not immoral, rather, they're simply people who are in an unimprovable position. Many good people file for bankruptcy. Banks and other creditors knew what the rules were when they made these loans or extended credit, they shouldn't be allowed to change the rules and reap the benefit to the detriment of ordinary Americans.

you should read about the bill...they tried to add amendments to protect people who were thrown into debt by medical catastrophe, denied...they tried to add and amendment protecting the homes of the elderly, denied...and on and on...BUT, they made it possible for the wealthy to put their assets in trusts that can't be touched...it will make you sick, this bill was written by credit companies and championed by Republicans and, to my dismay, several democrats

funny how I don't remember Bush mentioning this during the election...****ing coward

patteeu
03-12-2005, 08:09 AM
this bill will affect republicans to. Im sure that the 50 percent of people who file because of medical bills are not all dems.This bill screws your avg Joe Shmoe american, regardless of political leanings.18 dems were for it and shame on them all to.

Can you explain how this bill screws "avg Joe Shmoe american?" My very-limited understanding of the new law is that the poor will still have access to bankruptcy and those who can affort it, will have to make payments on their debt. What's wrong with that?

penchief
03-12-2005, 07:37 PM
IMO, balance is the key.

I do believe that financial irresponisiblity should not go without consequence, however, as with anything related to this administration they are willing to do the bidding for their banking and corporate cronies while doing nothing to curb their usury/predatory practices.

While I agree that the ignorance and irresponsibility of the common citizen is not an excuse, I also believe that their should be a limit to the interest that can be charged, as well as the practice of tacking on excessive late fees when interest is compounded daily for the same purpose.

To those who believe America is a Darwinian free-for-all, their lackeys in congress have fed their wet dream of exacting maximal income while providing no consumer protection or fairness at all.

WilliamTheIrish
03-12-2005, 09:45 PM
Let me just say before I post this article, that I never/rarely agree with anything Paul Krugman writes. In this case however, there is nothing he says that I don't agree with.

The Debt-Peonage Society

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: March 8, 2005

Today the Senate is expected to vote to limit debate on a bill that toughens the existing bankruptcy law, probably ensuring the bill's passage. A solid bloc of Republican senators, assisted by some Democrats, has already voted down a series of amendments that would either have closed loopholes for the rich or provided protection for some poor and middle-class families.

The bankruptcy bill was written by and for credit card companies, and the industry's political muscle is the reason it seems unstoppable. But the bill also fits into the broader context of what Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale, calls "risk privatization": a steady erosion of the protection the government provides against personal misfortune, even as ordinary families face ever-growing economic insecurity.

The bill would make it much harder for families in distress to write off their debts and make a fresh start. Instead, many debtors would find themselves on an endless treadmill of payments.

The credit card companies say this is needed because people have been abusing the bankruptcy law, borrowing irresponsibly and walking away from debts. The facts say otherwise.

A vast majority of personal bankruptcies in the United States are the result of severe misfortune. One recent study found that more than half of bankruptcies are the result of medical emergencies. The rest are overwhelmingly the result either of job loss or of divorce.

To the extent that there is significant abuse of the system, it's concentrated among the wealthy - including corporate executives found guilty of misleading investors - who can exploit loopholes in the law to protect their wealth, no matter how ill-gotten.

One increasingly popular loophole is the creation of an "asset protection trust," which is worth doing only for the wealthy. Senator Charles Schumer introduced an amendment that would have limited the exemption on such trusts, but apparently it's O.K. to game the system if you're rich: 54 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted against the Schumer amendment.

Other amendments were aimed at protecting families and individuals who have clearly been forced into bankruptcy by events, or who would face extreme hardship in repaying debts. Ted Kennedy introduced an exemption for cases of medical bankruptcy. Russ Feingold introduced an amendment protecting the homes of the elderly. Dick Durbin asked for protection for armed services members and veterans. All were rejected.

None of this should come as a surprise: it's all part of the pattern.

As Mr. Hacker and others have documented, over the past three decades the lives of ordinary Americans have become steadily less secure, and their chances of plunging from the middle class into acute poverty ever larger. Job stability has declined; spells of unemployment, when they happen, last longer; fewer workers receive health insurance from their employers; fewer workers have guaranteed pensions.

Some of these changes are the result of a changing economy. But the underlying economic trends have been reinforced by an ideologically driven effort to strip away the protections the government used to provide. For example, long-term unemployment has become much more common, but unemployment benefits expire sooner. Health insurance coverage is declining, but new initiatives like health savings accounts (introduced in the 2003 Medicare bill), rather than discouraging that trend, further undermine the incentives of employers to provide coverage.

Above all, of course, at a time when ever-fewer workers can count on pensions from their employers, the current administration wants to phase out Social Security.

The bankruptcy bill fits right into this picture. When everything else goes wrong, Americans can still get a measure of relief by filing for bankruptcy - and rising insecurity means that they are forced to do this more often than in the past. But Congress is now poised to make bankruptcy law harsher, too.

Warren Buffett recently made headlines by saying America is more likely to turn into a "sharecroppers' society" than an "ownership society." But I think the right term is a "debt peonage" society - after the system, prevalent in the post-Civil War South, in which debtors were forced to work for their creditors. The bankruptcy bill won't get us back to those bad old days all by itself, but it's a significant step in that direction.

And any senator who votes for the bill should be ashamed.

Lbedrock1
03-12-2005, 10:05 PM
[QUOTE=Cochise]I dont know if this bill is the right way to do it, but I think bankruptcy protection should be harder to get. There are plenty of people out there who run up credit bills knowing full well that they will never pay and will file for bankruptcy. I think we'd all be better off if credit wasn't as easy to get and massive personal debt wasn't so common place.

You are right, but those that are doing that are usually people who have enough money that they dont have to worry about credit. What the bill doesn't take into account are those really needing to file. I dont feel sorry for the credit card companies and niether should anyone. they force feed you credit cards in the mail all day and when you get in trouble using them they don't try and help you get out of debt. They should have passed a bill saying that credit card debt can last no longer that a certain period of time that way we would not have people filing for bankruptcy so often over cc debt. It should work like this. 5000 dollar cc debt with reasonable interest over a seven year period. a person should not have to stay in debt for 47 years at 18% interest. I know that would be the min payment but the cc companies are ripping the consumer off beacuse they make more that 5 times that amount charged.

DenverChief
03-12-2005, 11:45 PM
I don't like this legislation and here is why

For more than two years, special-education teacher Fatemeh Hosseini worked a second job to keep up with the $2,000 in monthly payments she collectively sent to five banks to try to pay $25,000 in credit card debt.

Even though she had not used the cards to buy anything more, her debt had nearly doubled to $49,574 by the time the Sunnyvale, Calif., resident filed for bankruptcy last June. That is because Hosseini's payments sometimes were tardy, triggering late fees ranging from $25 to $50 and doubling interest rates to nearly 30 percent. When the additional costs pushed her balance over her credit limit, the credit card companies added more penalties.

"I was really trying hard to make minimum payments," said Hosseini, whose financial problems began in the late 1990s when her husband left her and their three children. "All of my salary was going to the credit card companies, but there was no change in the balances because of that interest and those penalties."

Punitive charges -- penalty fees and sharply higher interest rates after a payment is late -- compound the problems of many financially strapped consumers, sometimes making it impossible for them to dig their way out of debt and pushing them into bankruptcy.

The Senate is to vote as soon as this week on a bill that would make it harder for individuals to wipe out debt through bankruptcy. The Senate last week voted down several amendments intended to curb excessive fees and other practices that critics of the industry say are abusive. House leaders say they will act soon after that, and President Bush has said he supports the bill.

Bankruptcy experts say that too often, by the time an individual has filed for bankruptcy or is hauled into court by creditors, he or she has repaid an amount equal to their original credit card debt plus double-digit interest, but still owes hundreds or thousands of dollars because of penalties.

"How is it that the person who wants to do right ends up so worse off?" Cleveland Municipal Judge Robert J. Triozzi said last fall when he ruled against Discover in the company's breach-of-contract suit against another struggling credit cardholder, Ruth M. Owens.

Owens tried for six years to pay off a $1,900 balance on her Discover card, sending the credit company a total of $3,492 in monthly payments from 1997 to 2003. Yet her balance grew to $5,564.28, even though, like Hosseini, she never used the card to buy anything more. Of that total, over-limit penalty fees alone were $1,158.

Triozzi denied Discover's claim, calling its attempt to collect more money from Owens "unconscionable."






http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10361-2005Mar5.html

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 01:05 AM
Other amendments were aimed at protecting families and individuals who have clearly been forced into bankruptcy by events, or who would face extreme hardship in repaying debts. Ted Kennedy introduced an exemption for cases of medical bankruptcy. Russ Feingold introduced an amendment protecting the homes of the elderly. Dick Durbin asked for protection for armed services members and veterans. All were rejected.




Patheti-f*cking-sad

patteeu
03-13-2005, 02:56 PM
I don't like this legislation and here is why

People need to realize that credit cards are useful but dangerous. Perhaps the ease with which one can avoid these horror situations through bankruptcy has kept stories like this from being publicized thereby providing examples that warn others to curb this type of irresponsible behavior.

Are gas stations bad because they sell both gasoline and cigarette lighters? The only difference between this scenario and the credit card scenario is that for whatever reason, people learn the lesson that fire and gasoline need to be handled with caution while they seem to be oblivious to the dangers of paying with plastic. We need to get people to pay attention to the moral of these horror stories more than we need to prevent the possibility that these situations will occur.

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 02:59 PM
irresponsible behavior.




if her husband hadn't left her and all the debt on her you might have an argument..

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 03:08 PM
if her husband hadn't left her and all the debt on her you might have an argument..


and its way to easy to do...when my mom got her divorce the judge stuck her with 15K in credit card debt even though the credit card was in both names....kinda effed up if you ask me

Mosbonian
03-13-2005, 06:08 PM
I was more or less ambivalent about the bill. There were elements I supported however.

I would have been a bit happier if there had been a carve out for major medical expenses, which cause a significant number of bankruptcy filings. I don't think that one made it into the final bill.

But still, not a terrible bill by any means, IMHO.

Thank you....this is a long time in coming.

But there are still provisions that pay off more for secured creditors than unsecured creditors. The major push for this came from the CC companies and Banks.....

I will disagree however that medical expenses are the cause for significant number of bankruptcies.....while it is what most would label as the "best" reason for filing, I would say consumer excess and job loss are more significant.

mmaddog
*******

Mosbonian
03-13-2005, 06:16 PM
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

More than half of bankruptcys in the U.S.. are caused by medical bills.While this bill screws middle america there are still loop holes for the wealthy like being able to keep your home no matter how much the house is worth.Sometimes I feel like the goverments just trying to sell are lives out from underneath us. I am disappointed in the dems on this bill.

How much do you know about federal exemptions and state exemptions in a bankruptcy?

mmaddog
*******

Mosbonian
03-13-2005, 06:42 PM
For instance I don't think people who have gambling debts or excess credit card debit (example: double or triple their income) should be allowed to file for bankruptcy especially repeatedly. Those are the type of 'loopholes' that should be closed.

You mean "Chapter 14" or "Chapter 26" for consumers...or that is what those of us in the credit industry call it. It's a joke in the industry...


But, it seems they closed holes that they claim regular joes used and abused while they simutaneously did NOTHING to close big business loopholes AND in a shitty of shitty moves struck down the part of the bill the Dems were trying to add which made it illegal for bankrupt companies to pay bonuses to CEO's and management of those companies.

:banghead: :shake:

Actually they did make some changes to business bankruptcy that aided Creditors who are getting ripped off in business bankruptcies.....which is just as much a problem as consumer bankruptcies.

As for bonuses for CEO's and management that are with bankrupt companies, there is more than meet's the eye. If you are familiar with how tough it is to get good qualified managers to join companies to assist in "turnarounds", then you wouldn't be beefing about that portion of the bill that was struck down.

Now, if you are talking about giving bonuses to the fool's who have bankrupted the company in the first place, then I agree.

mmaddog
*******

patteeu
03-13-2005, 06:55 PM
if her husband hadn't left her and all the debt on her you might have an argument..

Actually, I don't see that as a flaw in my argument. Husbands leave, husbands die, husbands become drunks and lose their jobs, etc. Don't carry credit card debt or you are taking a risk (even if your current situation makes it look like the debt load is manageable). Credit cards, unlike most other forms of credit, have huge penalties that can rape you if you don't play by the rules in your disclosure statement.

and its way to easy to do...when my mom got her divorce the judge stuck her with 15K in credit card debt even though the credit card was in both names....kinda effed up if you ask me

The lesson of your mom's story is "Don't rack up $15K in credit card debt unless you can pay it off immediately. Especially if you might get divorced from the breadwinner and get stuck with all the debt."

You don't even have to have a divorce for this to happen. An able-bodied person with a nice salary who carries a substantial credit card debt might have an accident or get sick and lose that job. Suddenly the debt that seemed fairly manageable is no longer manageable. That's not really an excuse. Unfortunate events like these are not unforseeable risks. If you carry a big debt on your credit card, you are playing russian roulette.

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 07:01 PM
Actually, I don't see that as a flaw in my argument. Husbands leave, husbands die, husbands become drunks and lose their jobs, etc. Don't carry credit card debt or you are taking a risk (even if your current situation makes it look like the debt load is manageable). Credit cards, unlike most other forms of credit, have huge penalties that can rape you if you don't play by the rules in your disclosure statement.



The lesson of your mom's story is "Don't rack up $15K in credit card debt unless you can pay it off immediately. Especially if you might get divorced from the breadwinner and get stuck with all the debt."

You don't even have to have a divorce for this to happen. An able-bodied person with a nice salary who carries a substantial credit card debt might have an accident or get sick and lose that job. Suddenly the debt that seemed fairly manageable is no longer manageable. That's not really an excuse. Unfortunate events like these are not unforseeable risks. If you carry a big debt on your credit card, you are playing russian roulette.
but see thats the prooblem no one can see the future for one and two one lady in the story only ahd $1900 in CC debt and payed over 3K to repay in and now is up to 5K in debt in late fees and over limit fees....either the CC companies need to tone down the late/over limit fees or they need to accept that those fees will lead many people into bankrupcy....I agree that people need to be more responsible but so do the CC companies

Mosbonian
03-13-2005, 07:02 PM
you should read about the bill...they tried to add amendments to protect people who were thrown into debt by medical catastrophe, denied...they tried to add and amendment protecting the homes of the elderly, denied...and on and on...BUT, they made it possible for the wealthy to put their assets in trusts that can't be touched...it will make you sick, this bill was written by credit companies and championed by Republicans and, to my dismay, several democrats



Sorry...but your version of this bill is a little biased.

Where do you draw the line on medical catastrophes? And what constitutes a "catastrophe?

As for the rest...there are already state and federal exemptions that cover protecting the homes of people in bankruptcies....they're called "homestead" exemptions and they not only protect the home, but the personal property of the person filing.

If you really had an idea how much is lost by legitimate businesses in bankruptcies by both consumers and business fraud then you wouldn't be some "appalled".

As for your assertion that only the wealthy will profit by this, it shows that you need to do additional research.

mmaddog
*******

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 07:04 PM
Sorry...but your version of this bill is a little biased.

Where do you draw the line on medical catastrophes? And what constitutes a "catastrophe?

As for the rest...there are already state and federal exemptions that cover protecting the homes of people in bankruptcies....they're called "homestead" exemptions and they not only protect the home, but the personal property of the person filing.

If you really had an idea how much is lost by legitimate businesses in bankruptcies by both consumers and business fraud then you wouldn't be some "appalled".

As for your assertion that only the wealthy will profit by this, it shows that you need to do additional research.

mmaddog
******* Other amendments were aimed at protecting families and individuals who have clearly been forced into bankruptcy by events, or who would face extreme hardship in repaying debts. Ted Kennedy introduced an exemption for cases of medical bankruptcy. Russ Feingold introduced an amendment protecting the homes of the elderly. Dick Durbin asked for protection for armed services members and veterans. All were rejected

Mosbonian
03-13-2005, 07:09 PM
and its way to easy to do...when my mom got her divorce the judge stuck her with 15K in credit card debt even though the credit card was in both names....kinda effed up if you ask me

And when I got divorced from my first wife, I got stuck with all of the debts, even the dollars that she ran up forging my signature.

Taught me a valuable lesson....

mmaddog
*******

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 07:11 PM
"homestead" exemptions
Title 11 U.S.C. Section 522
Homestead • Real property, including co-op or mobile home, to $18,450 whoopty f*ckin doo

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 07:12 PM
And when I got divorced from my first wife, I got stuck with all of the debts, even the dollars that she ran up forging my signature.

Taught me a valuable lesson....

mmaddog
*******

IT's :BS: IMO debt acrued under both names should be split evenly...but I ain't a judge

Mosbonian
03-13-2005, 07:12 PM
Did you not read my explanation?

The homes of the elderly are, in most cases already covered by the homestead exemptions. And even though it makes it harder to file for bankruptcy and "do away" with all of your "unsecured debt", don't even begin to believe the "sky is falling" mentality that is being thrown about in this diatribe.

mmaddog
*******

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 07:19 PM
Did you not read my explanation?

The homes of the elderly are, in most cases already covered by the homestead exemptions.

Uh depending on which state you live in and not by the federal government

Missouri makes not exepmtions for the elderly and only up to 15K in real property
http://www.bankruptcyaction.com/moexemptions.htm

and Kansas hs no Elderly exemptions either

http://www.bankruptcyaction.com/ksexemptions.htm

Mosbonian
03-13-2005, 07:21 PM
Title 11 U.S.C. Section 522
Homestead • Real property, including co-op or mobile home, to $18,450 whoopty f*ckin doo

Now take some time to see just how much you get in state exemptions...

If you truly think that there will be people standing in line to take homes away from people, then you are creating "sensationalism" that doesn't exist.

Please show me where, in bankruptcies that homes are taken away from consumers....if you were any bit enlightened then you would know that homes are usually "secured debt" which is usually treated outside of bankruptcy.

Most of what is at stake here is "unsecured debt"....and if you truly think that CC companies are going to be able to worm their way into your assets, then you are wrong. What truly will happen is that you will actually have to pay back unsecured debt...probably in a smaller portion, like 10 to 30% of it over a 36/48/60 month plan.

mmaddog
*******

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 07:24 PM
Now take some time to see just how much you get in state exemptions...



you get one or the other not both and in 35 states you only get state exemptions

great link check it out

http://www.bankruptcyaction.com/bankruptcyexemptions.htm

Mosbonian
03-13-2005, 07:38 PM
I've spent 28 years in Credit and I can tell you that I have seen rich and poor "profit" from bankruptcy....

I've watched as people completely wipe out their debt and walk away clear, only to run up debt and get up to their eyeballs again, only to use a loophole in the system to file again before they are supposed to legally do so.

This new law only makes people be more careful about acquiring debt....and trust me, the legal community has already been making waves about the loopholes the new law will create.

Have you completely read the new bill? Have you taken time to understand how it will assist businesses in bankruptcies? There is more to this bill than just consumer-based bankruptcies which seems to be the focus of everyone here.

mmaddog
*******

Mosbonian
03-13-2005, 07:46 PM
you get one or the other not both and in 35 states you only get state exemptions

great link check it out

http://www.bankruptcyaction.com/bankruptcyexemptions.htm

I don't need the link....as a member of NACM I have been part of the lobby for this bill off and on for the last 10 years.

And when it comes to exemptions, you get the most whether it is state or federal. And there is something else you probably don't understand about bankruptcy. Unlike regular legal proceedings, trustees and judges set precedent more than they follow it.

Tell me about bankruptcies...what do you know about preferences? What do you know about the legalities of reclamation? How about the differences in consumer and business bankruptcies?

mmaddog
*******

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 08:23 PM
There is more to this bill than just consumer-based bankruptcies which seems to be the focus of everyone here.



I care more about individuals than businesses

Mosbonian
03-13-2005, 08:37 PM
I care more about individuals than businesses

Therein lies the problem....lack of understanding. Everytime a business fails it affects individuals. People lose jobs making it 2 bankruptcies possible.....

I care about both.....and i want all the loopholes for everything closed, but I am a dreamer. I have watched the system of bankruptcy abused for so long that I have become cynical as to any possibility that our government will get it right. But this bill, while appearing wrong, (thanks to people who might want their own way) is a step in the right direction.

And it's a hell of a lot better than the system that we have now.

mmaddog
*******

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 09:15 PM
Therein lies the problem....lack of understanding. Everytime a business fails it affects individuals. People lose jobs making it 2 bankruptcies possible.....

I care about both.....and i want all the loopholes for everything closed, but I am a dreamer. I have watched the system of bankruptcy abused for so long that I have become cynical as to any possibility that our government will get it right. But this bill, while appearing wrong, (thanks to people who might want their own way) is a step in the right direction.

And it's a hell of a lot better than the system that we have now.

mmaddog
*******

why can't the credit companies just be more careful whom they lend money to? wouldn't that make more sense? of course not becasue they don't want any responsibility

patteeu
03-13-2005, 09:38 PM
but see thats the prooblem no one can see the future for one and two one lady in the story only ahd $1900 in CC debt and payed over 3K to repay in and now is up to 5K in debt in late fees and over limit fees....either the CC companies need to tone down the late/over limit fees or they need to accept that those fees will lead many people into bankrupcy....I agree that people need to be more responsible but so do the CC companies

I'm not necessarily against a law limiting the maximum interest rate or the maximum late fees that a credit card company can charge. I'd have to hear from the opponents to such a plan to decide where I stand on that. But that's not what this law is about. This law is about making people live under the current lending rules without the ability to sweep their mistakes under the rug.

Under the current lending rules, it's really pretty simple. If you are going to use a credit card, make sure you can pay the entire balance off immediately if necessary. Don't count on future income unless it's guaranteed.

Mosbonian
03-13-2005, 09:40 PM
why can't the credit companies just be more careful whom they lend money to? wouldn't that make more sense? of course not becasue they don't want any responsibility

When it comes to Credit Card companies I am in total agreement. But you are focusing too narrowly to truly understand what a problem bankruptcy is. It doesn't just affect them, it affects your company...it affects you.

If you work for a business then bankruptcy affects you. Everytime your company sells a product, you face the risk that your customer will not pay you. And if a large number of them don't pay your company, then your company could face the prospect of facing bankruptcy.

But even worse....companies not only face the prospect of the loss of unpaid invoices, it also faces the prospect of losing more money in preferential payments.

As for being "more careful" in whom "credit companies" loan money to, many of the more reputable already are being more careful. But to be fair, until we have a more acceptable system of credit reporting, those lending money do the best that they can in doing credit checking.

You are trying to make it more simple than it really is, but I can tell you that it is not just as simple as being more careful.

mmaddog
*******

Uncle_Ted
03-14-2005, 12:00 AM
When it comes to Credit Card companies I am in total agreement. But you are focusing too narrowly to truly understand what a problem bankruptcy is. It doesn't just affect them, it affects your company...it affects you.

If you work for a business then bankruptcy affects you. Everytime your company sells a product, you face the risk that your customer will not pay you. And if a large number of them don't pay your company, then your company could face the prospect of facing bankruptcy.

But even worse....companies not only face the prospect of the loss of unpaid invoices, it also faces the prospect of losing more money in preferential payments.

As for being "more careful" in whom "credit companies" loan money to, many of the more reputable already are being more careful. But to be fair, until we have a more acceptable system of credit reporting, those lending money do the best that they can in doing credit checking.

You are trying to make it more simple than it really is, but I can tell you that it is not just as simple as being more careful.

mmaddog
*******


I don't disagree with most of this ... but b'ruptcy is one of those areas like immigration -- if they're going to make a large change, then the whole system need to be "blown up" and there needs to be a comprehensive reform. A drastic change in only one part of the system will likely lead to unintended consequences in other areas. We need to address consumer credit abuse, bankruptcy abuse, predatory practices by credit providers, etc. all at the same time. The net result of this bill -- which only addresses one part of the problem -- will just be more profit in the hands of the financial services industry (which is already one of our nation's most profitable industries). So now the big banks can give their CEO's $100 million bonuses instead of just $50 million bonuses.