Well I guess it is time for me to apologize for saying mean and provoking things in a blanket manner to the basic post of the topic. Using such broad terms are incorrect in defining a group of people and not conducive to a civil debate. I spent some time watching CSPAN2 and several liberal senators had made some comments that seemed to support poor people should be able to screw over creditors since creditors screw over clients. Comments like those seemed irresponsible to me since I don’t think there is an adult American that doesn’t know in advance creditors will screw over you if you let them. Anyway I applied a debate method I had used on other combative debate sites to raise the emotion because on the other sites this seemed to result with people answering very quickly with emotion that contained unvarnished opinion. I was wrong to do that and I apologize!

I bet you folks didn’t think I could be touchy – feely? Now about the guy in the doublewide and soldier welfare…I think I could group the response together. Way back when there was a military draft in the 60’s service to the country was considered a “duty”. Families were “expected” to subsidize expenses to family members when a citizen, a male was serving his country. For example I was earning $350 to $475 a month with overtime in 66-67 when I got my draft notice. My first army paycheck was $77.00 and that month I worked about 90 hours a week and soldiers with wife and children got $75 a month extra to support the additional family. Life was just different than one could comprehend now, people put off marriage and children until after performing “service” to the nation, family’s and community chipped in to help wives left behind. Many of the names on the Vietnam memorial were earning less than $300 a month with their tax-free status including combat pay. I never gained enough rank to have an equal paycheck to my civilian job for over four years when the compensation was drastically adjusted when the all-volunteer army was introduced.

I homesteaded in Korea from 72 to 75 to miss being a pop up target in Vietnam since I couldn’t understand why we were there. I became a capitalist pig in Korea and saved and bought a brand new Subaru sedan for $1825 in 72 and rented a nice house on Key money, a system requiring you to pay several million Won on a contract that the owner would repay when you leave. So I paid my 5 million Won (about $2,000 US) and lived free getting my heating fuel and car gas for about $0.09 a gallon from the army. I got my rent for free and was able to sell my used car for $2600 because the Japanese had devaluated the dollar by 25% in the period. My wife and I saved nearly $30K and upon return to the US we bought an 11-acre farm, a new car paying cash, and paid down payment on a doublewide trailer from the now famous hardware dealer Lowes at 22% interest. I held back some of our savings to buy materials to build my own home. It took me a couple years to build and then I sold the double wide at a 75% loss in investment. When I divorced I gave the home I built with my hands and the farm worth $130K. Unknown to my X I had saved $5K in a mutual fund and had a head start to restart my life when I remarried.

Back to the army welfare gravy train, my twentieth year was on the Korean DMZ and I was really lapping on the teat by then since I had gained rank to the second highest enlisted rank, hey I was tearing down $2,600 a month and all I had to do was a 12 mile road march on New Years day, actually morning since it started at 0400 hours on my first day of duty that year and live and work within North Korean artillery range 24-7 as we worked 6 ½ days a week averaging a 90 hour work week. Well, that sounds exaggerated a little now doesn’t it? Our days started at 0400 for road marches or our Friday 11-mile run and at 0500 when we only ran or marched 4 miles and ended at 1800 (6:00 PM). Saturdays we worked 0700 to 1400 and many Sundays we worked 4 or more hours. Oh of course let’s not forget the field duty working 24-7 in the freezing mud. And all I was responsible for was the legal police operations of three MP stations securing 600 square kilometers of DMZ with a 180 man force to police 13K Infantry Division. You are correct soldiers do get more bennies than civilians Daffy Girl. We also get punished if the commander gets a phone call or letter from a debtor.

I don’t know what kind of paralleling “career path” your neighbor was on but I still say if he had a better job than the beach he should have been responsible enough to cover his future and that of his family.

I don't support the bill, I said it may be a good thing in the long run. Especially if we decide to start being more financially responsible.
Which possible, theoretical, situation is bugging you? Hardly matters, as
no legislation is perfect, certainly not perfect enough to address every situation. Insisting on perfection is how nothing gets done. Each party blames the other for the imperfections. Neither party really cares, unless it somehow can be manipulated to get some votes.
I have never before heard anyone who respects another's religion use a term like "Holy Joe". In fact, that particular derogatory term is completely new to me.
Back to topic....


Do you agree that persons with ability to repay debts should be required by the government to repay them?

Definitely, and that would include the middle class, the wealthy, etc. If you are truly poor, well, you can't get blood out of a stone. So write it off on corporate taxes and move on. Like I said, look at the situation. But repeating the error, whether it is the individual committing the error, or the creditor, is a bit different. If the same lender approaches a known bad risk customer, then they get no support or sympathy from the courts if the same results occur.

Do you think creditors should eat the debt since they encourage people to spend beyond their means?

I don't think very many creditors do that. There is usually something or someone between the customer and the creditor. I have seen it happen at car dealerships, when they steer the hapless customer to a higher interest rate company so they can get a kickback. Also home sellers, they find ways to make the buyers qualify, come hades or high water. But they don't twist your arm to get you to spend money.
If we don't learn the first time, we repeat the error. How does it go? Cheat me once, shame on you. Cheat me twice, shame on me.
Summing it all up, it is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY as far as you can manage it. Then, like we tell our grown kids, we will bail you out as needed, but only if you are acting in a financially responsible manner. Start getting foolish, and you are on your own.

Getting into this debate somewhat late here, so I'll go back to the first page and reference one of the bullets in CJ's laundry list of liberal spin.



These cute little titles are one thing, the bill text is another. To read this description as provided by CJ on the surface, one would think that our service members deployed in Iraq and elsewhere are doomed when they get home. They have no protection whatsoever. How could this be? How could those evil Republicans possibly do this?

Well, the simple fact is they aren't, it's not happening and it's not in this bill.

Senator Sessions offered a rebuttal in floor debate to this amendment and the claims made by Senator Durbin. If is available on Thomas. In part what he said was the following:



In regards to "health-related" issues, one of the individuals cited by Durbin was a woman named Elizabeth Warren. Senator Sessions said this on the Senate floor about Ms Warren's viewpoint......



I haven't participated in this debate before because this is not an issue that is terribly high on my interest list. It is also an enormously complicated issue that I believe requires a great deal of study. Simply listing some talking points about the slew of amendments offered by various and sundry Democrats doesn't cut it in my opinion.

Edited to add.....

Information on The Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act.

And how exactly is that different from what you just did aquilla? You started off your response by declaring everything I wrote to be "liberal spin" when you yourself just admitted it is a complicated issue that you don't know much about.

If you think I (and others for that matter) have simply provided talking points and liberal spin then perhaps you ought to spend a few minutes actually reading the topic before you make that determination.

There was one post of mine which covered the amendments. I have probably written at least 10 others that did not.

Your last quote, is guilty of the same flawed logic that others who support this bill are. There are hard statistics out there (and presented in this thread) that cite medical debt and unemployment to be the biggest causes of bankruptcy.

The senator you quoted suggests that the purpose of the bill is to combat those that have overspent. If that is his position that is fine. However, you don't change the system for everyone to fix that problem, it is just flawed reasoning. It is in fact not very much of a problem at all. Sort of like social security isn't in "crisis". Noticing a pattern here?

That is why I only took issue with one point in your laundry list. That interested me and I looked into it a little bit. I notice you haven't refuted it.



Yep, but there still is that one isn't there....



If Senator Sessions is correct about Ms. Warren's belief that gambling debts are "medical bills" then that may very well skew the "hard statistics". Is Senator Sessions correct in that characterization?



Yep, I'm noticing a pattern alright. Probably not the one you would like to have noticed however. I question one claim made in one post of yours and instead of actually addressing that claim you start telling me how many posts you've made in this thread and talking about them instead of the point I raised.

Well this is a surprize to me. But, it explains the inconsistency I was seing in what you were saying (or thought I was seeing).

So then, if the bill stands as written would you support it's passage? Or would you oppose it unless it addresses the issue of holding everyone accountable for all debts, and does not continue the trust loopholes and the like?

Also, do you think that a reform that should be in this bill is a requirement that companies filing bankruptcy discharge debts to pension plans and the like before other debts?



I apologize. I honestly never knew this was a derogatory term. I always thought it was a nickname of Joseph Smith, nothing more. The only reason I used it is because at the time, for some odd reason, I could not remember Joseph Smith's name.

My intent was not to insult, I was merely seeking clarification on something you said. I was trying to figure out where you were coming from on that issue.




I can go with this. The problem I have is that the current Bill in question does not approach each situation individually. For that matter, neither does current bankruptcy law, but at least the current law allows for more options, and realizes that people need a place to live.



One problem with the Soldiers and Sailors Civil "Relief" Act. Read it carefully and you will find that it only applies while the member of the military is activated. Once they are deactivated they are treated like everyone else. The problem with that is that the income they lost while deployed is still lost.

The Amendment in Question was simply written to exempt military personnel from means testing in regards to their personal property and to disallow the absurd interest rates some charge US Service members because they know then can get the military to make the member pay. As a former member of the acvtive duty military I can tell you that there are alot of ceditors out there who specifically target the US Military with lending schemes that can keep them paying for their entire military career. That is because they know the UCMJ requires that military members pay all debts, and it does not take into consideration, preditory practices or boarderline fraud.

My biggest problem with this proposed bill is that it no longer exempts your primary residence from the proceedings.

How many elderly people, or people like me are just making it because their homes are paid off? If you include that equity, then you force them to sell their homes or take a loan against the home to pay the bills. If they could not pay the bills when they didn't have a mortgage, how could they pay the mortgage? Sometimes you can, that is what bill consolidation loans are all about, but other times, you just can't get 2 dollars out of 1 dollar. If they have to sell their homes, how will they pay rent, when they could not pay their bills even when the owned their home free and clear?

The Cheapest Rent I know of in St. Louis is around 450.00 a month and trust me, you would not want your kids there. Property taxes are low here, utility costs are low here, and when I do the math, I could not afford to support my family now, if I had to pay rent too. So If medical bills crush me, my only real option (other then suicide) under this new bill is to divorce my wife so she can go on welfare. Family values?



The problem here is that yes, under current law this is conceivable, but it rarely happens, it frequently comes down to who has the better lawyer. The court generally requires that you discharge all debts that you can. The one exception in the calculations is you home of residence. This bill would eliminate that exception.

There are loopholes and there is abuse. But rather the address those loopholes and abuses this bill fundamentally changed the system to favor creditors over average people, while specifically leaving the most glaring loophole availible to those with the money to use it.

The Republicans have created a "Creditor Protection Act" and nothing more.

Do you agree that persons with ability to repay debts should be required by the government to repay them?

Depends. I don't think someone should be forced to sell their house just because they were to foolish to know what they were getting into. Of course, its not just people going out and buying stuff they cant pay for like there's no tomorrow. Credit Card companys are pretty sneaky, and they have a habit of tripling interest rates when it looks like a convient time to do so. While undoubtedly there is some consumer abuse, I think much the abuse lie's upon the company's themselves. This situation is an example of where a lack of regulation is allowing corruption to flourish.

Do you think creditors should eat the debt since they encourage people to spend beyond their means?

As I said before, Credit Card companys are corrupt. They want you to overspend, because if your not in debt they don't make more then a modest profit. I think that regulation should be implemented, that bans credit card companys from changing interest rates without the consent of the consumer for each rate change.

Do you agree that persons with ability to repay debts should be required by the government to repay them?

I never promised you a rose garden…I guess this is the message from the current administration along with the original message of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Yes good credit is necessary in today’s world but not for buying stuff other than essentials unless you are filthy rich and can use the credit to produce capitol. Credit used unwisely isn’t justified regardless how you try to justify it. If you make a purchase on credit you cannot pay off the same month and it is not an emergency they the purchase is unwise. Some emergencies are also not emergencies like the transmission going out on the car, stuff gets old and breaks and wise budgeting will warrant establishing a savings for such emergencies.

The constitution clearly states all men are created equal but we all know the King of England granted large estates to folks in favor and they didn’t give them back when the constitution was signed. Likewise the “old money” folks rule Wall Street and you are not equal to rub shoulders with the dusty old dudes in their private club.

So if you didn’t choose parents belonging to “old money” you have to make a budget in order to live with dignity. A responsible person, as opposed to Wimpy, the character in old Popeye cartoons that will gladly pay you on Tuesday for a cheeseburger today, will save money and make purchases from cash. Of course there are situations where credit is necessary but they are rare and for lower income people are limited to purchasing a home. Everyone loves the truth of science and math so do the math and prove a purchase on credit will advantage over saving and paying cash other than a home. Credit just doesn’t add up to an asset and will always become a liability unless congress approves a method to allow you to dump debt at will and it appears they think this is a bad idea.

A sound budget is the only way to survive and I would apply the same logic to the government. The government like old money such as Warren Buffet can simply print more money or take it from the folks who don’t have old money. Buffet is a flaming liberal and is a stanch supporter of the Democratic Party and one must scratch their head and ask why such a capitalist would be liberal? Well, Berkshire Hathaway stock Warren’s stock always makes big bucks and a single share is priced in the thousands and mainly benefits from big business insurance and primarily focuses on Florida. So, if this high hurricane insured area misses being hit for two or three years his stock increases by trillions and if it gets hit FEMA helps the poor guy out a little. The guy without old money can’t compete with warren so you must have a budget or have a liberal government that allows you to wipe out your debt. Ideally if you had a liberal government willing to wipe out your debt you could charge three or four shares of Berkshire Hathaway stock and make a killing.

Do you think creditors should eat the debt since they encourage people to spend beyond their means?

So if no one can show a reason for a responsible person to act like Wimpy then no one should blame Warren and company for fleecing him or her down. If you can’t afford to give away 25% of your earnings to live a few months in the future then you don’t need a piece of plastic in your wallet to allow “old money” to twist the knife.

I think that all your assets should be on the table if you need to go bankrupt. That's just how it should work...if losing your home will cause to a hardship, you'd still be better off than the equivalent person who didn't have that equity.

The old money - new money thing is relavent here: banks literally create 'new' money when they loan above their reserves, which they do on the order of 10 to 1. A bank can take $1M in deposits and loan $10M into existence: they pay 2% on the deposits and receive $8%+ on the loans: they get to make 78% on your deposits. Of course banking is one of the hardest businesses to get into, so competition is slim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation

The real kicker is that the money to pay the interest has to come from someone else borrowing it into existence. It's a viscious cycle, and won't end until we change our monetary system.

Anyway, the only people who get 'new' money are those with good credit, which means, more than likely, they already had money. The rich get richer and the poor stay poor.

Credit card companies love people with poor payment histories: they truly make bank off those late fees and the automatic bump up to 24.99%

Just a thought...maybe legislative bodies should demonstrate some financial control of their own before deciding they should tell others how to manage their money? Being responsible for creating the largest debt on the face of the earth hardly places one in any position to speak to anyone else about bankruptcy laws, does it? Wouldn't this be like the criminals determining what punishment our judicial system should hand out?

Couldn't agree with you more Hobbes- but here is another thought- why do we always start at the bottom feeders when going after abuse? For all the conservatives and republicans out there- why do you support these guys when thier cronies are the worst offenders of all? Ken Lay, K-mart, Enron, Niel Bush, Worldcom etc etc are not hurt by this legislation at all- and this REALLY costs all of us- so why is it the folks on this board support a lifetime of financial servitude for a hospital bill, but are okay with giving the folks mentioned above a "pass" for thier behavior?

Over and over again it has been shown that the main reason for bankruptcy is hospital bills and unemployment.

As a pretty well off guy with some serious financial discipline- I am "six months out" on everything- the industry standard for what is considered "financially secure"- but, if I were to lose my job for more than six months, even with my extremely low debt, I may have to file bankruptcy. So why the new law?

It is somewhat amusing to me that the two states that give the best protection are Texas and Florida especially with their connections to the current President. If the system is broken, we should first start with a federal homestead exemption amount that is uniform across the board.

This is a long thread, and raises many interesting observations regarding the proposed bankruptcy reform legislation (S.256), which the Congress will take up when it reconvenes this week. To start, let me answer the questions posed seriatim:

Do you agree that persons with ability to repay debts should be required by the government to repay them?

Yes. It should be noted that under the current bankruptcy law, the court may dismiss a case involving an individual debtor whose debts are primarily consumer debts (e.g., credit card obligations) if it finds that the granting of relief would be a substantial abuse of the discharge provisions under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. 11 U.S.C. Section 707(b). The court may dismiss the case, either on its own motion, sua sponte, or on the motion of the United States trustee, which agency has supervisory authority over all cases filed under title 11 of the United States Code. The proposed revisions to the Code providing a “means testing” does not add any substantive change to the existing law, and will only make current practice and procedure more complicated, and hence, more difficult of enforcement.

Do you think creditors should eat the debt since they encourage people to spend beyond their means?

Yes and No. This is a loaded question, because it presupposes that the creditors are in some fashion culpable in extending credit to debtors in the first place. The credit card companies, in particular, are accused of indiscriminate marketing of consumer credit, and unwilling to curb themselves have sought through the bankruptcy laws to enforce collection of improvident loans and extensions of credit. There are, no doubt, bad (even predatory) lending practices that should be addressed by the Congress, which should be chary of any attempt to use the bankruptcy laws to encourage such practices; however, that should be addressed by separate legislation. Under the existing law, creditors may sue in bankruptcy court to have their claims excepted from the discharge in a Chapter 7 case based on a debtor’s fraudulent conduct. 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a).

The problem with the so-called bankruptcy reform legislation is that it fails to address the real abuses of the law by business interests. In this regard, one should be mindful that the bankruptcy laws have been enacted for the benefit of both debtors and creditors; and, with regard to the latter, bankruptcy is big business.

When the last major bankruptcy reform legislation was enacted in 1978, there was much speculation that the new law would be used by corporate raiders as a tool in hostile takeovers. This did not occur to any significant extent because of the difficulties of meeting the requirements for involuntary petitions; and instead, the corporate lawyers have sought to use the provisions for assumption and rejection of executory contracts and unexpired leases as means of furthering unfair business practices under the guise of restructuring business.

The first foray was an assault on the labor unions in the Braniff Airlines reorganization, which prompted amendments to the bankruptcy laws; and more recently the rejection of unexpired commercial leases as in the Kmart bankruptcy case. This single provisions has been, more than anything else, the salvation of bad business, the backdoor for corporate welfare, and the instrument of the “Walmartization” of America by the hyper-merchant super-box stores.

The bankruptcy laws have become more and more a legal lever in the hands corporate executives for manipulating the marketplace to the detriment of everyone else. It is not ironic that these same predatory businesses are behind the latest bankruptcy “reform” legislation aimed at making it more difficult for consumer “debtors” to get debt relief when they can’t pay their bills, and yet these same business “creditors” are the first to file their Chapter 11 petitions the minute there is a slump in sales. It's not the consumers who are abusing the bankruptcy laws, it's big business.

It should be noted that the Congress will not make any significant changes affecting corporate reorganization that would adversely impact on Senator Joseph Biden’s constituency. Likewise, Senator Charles "Chuck" Grassley, who is the proponent of the reform legislation, is not likely to "reform" the provisions for family farmers under Chapter 12 of title 11. Nor will there be any adjustments in "means testing" under section 707(b) of the Code that would jeopardize the pet provision of Senator Orrin G. Hatch exempting tithing to churches and charitable organizations. One can be sure that all of the monied interests will look to their hobbyhorses.

Here are some “hobbyhorses” to ride on post 65:

Big Box Co., Inc., a Delaware corporation, leases a store facility in Yourtown, U.S.A. The lease is for a term of ten years for a rental of $1,000,000.00 per year. Big Box Co. is given a one-year deferment in rent payments in consideration for its execution of the long-term lease. After one year, Big Box Co. decides to close its business, and files bankruptcy. At the time of the bankruptcy filing, Big Box Co. is solvent with cash assets of $50,000,000.00 and liabilities aggregating $40,000,000.00, which consist of trade creditor claims of $30,000,000.00 and the unpaid lease obligation of $10,000,000.00. There are sufficient funds to pay all creditors 100% plus interest and return a substantial dividend to the equity holders of Big Box Co., Inc.; however under the bankruptcy laws, the landlords claim for damages for termination of the lease will be capped at a maximum of one year’’s rent ($1,000,000.00). If Big Box Co. were dissolved under state law, all creditors claims, including the landlord, would have to be paid in full before any distribution to shareholders of the corporation; however by filing bankruptcy Big Box Co., Inc. will be able to distribute $19,000,000.00 to the equity holders instead of just $10,000,000.00

Do you think that this use of the bankruptcy laws is abusive? Does S. 256 do anything about it? No.

Same scenario, except this time the lease is negotiated by the town council of Yourtown, U.S.A. with Zmart Corporation, which has hundreds of stores nationwide, and was given an even sweeter rent deal than Big Box Co (the town builds the store and gives Zmart one year’’s free rent!). The town council was told that Zmart would provide hundreds of jobs to Yourtown, but which turned out to be very low paying, and in the process, Zmart drove all the small business of Yourtown out of business. Now Zmart (which has hundreds of millions in cash reserves and financially solvent) has decided to move on to greener pastures, and filed for bankruptcy reorganization and submitted a plan including the rejection of the lease, leaving Yourtown holding the bag and hundreds of people out of work.

Do you think that this use of the bankruptcy laws is abusive? Does S. 256 do anything about it? No.

Jack and Jill have good jobs and have no problem paying their credit card obligations. However, Jack and Jill are devout Megatheriums, who tithe 10% percent of their income to the church. Jill voluntarily quits her job to be a full-time abortion protester. Jack and Jill file personal bankruptcy and discharge their credit card debts, which they otherwise could pay in full but for their church tithes. Under section 707(b) of the current Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Court may dismiss a case filed by an individual debtor whose debts are primarily consumer debts if it finds that the granting of relief would be a substantial abuse of the discharge provisions under Chapter 7; however in making the determination of whether the debtor has the ability to pay his debts, the court many not take into consideration whether the debtor has made, or continues to make, charitable contributions to any qualified religious or charitable entity or organization.

Do you think that this use of the bankruptcy laws is abusive? Does S. 256 do anything about it? No.

The Congress has now enacted the so-called bankruptcy reform legislation; and the President said that he will sign it into law. And, so it is written, so shall it be done.

In our history, there have been times when there were no federal bankruptcy laws in effect. This may seem strange to you, but while Congress has the authority to enact uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy; you don't have a constitutional right to file bankruptcy. Still, if we can learn anything from history, it is that bankruptcy has played not an insignificant role in the nation's economy; and that a law weighted heavily in favor of debtors or creditors, will be good for neither.

The pendulum has swung far to the side of creditors in an effort to make it more difficult for individuals to obtain debt relief through bankruptcy. This will ultimately have an inhibiting effect on the use of consumer credit that will adversely affect those very business interests that were the proponents of bankruptcy reform. At first, there will be only a small ripple in the nation's economy; but it will soon swell to the size of a tsunami.

The sell-out of our country to Corporate America continues. This bankruptucy bill clearly benefits the credit card industry and ignores the events that unfornately draws repsonsible people in bankruptucy due to medical bills, lost of jobs etc.,
The Republicans (and some Democrats) feel everybody that files for bankruptucy are all abusing the system which is complete non-sense. CJ, on this topic has brought some real credible information that debunkes this notion.

With Congress and the President ready to slash every social programs that helps the working poor ( where are the religious conservatives for the poor??) we should expect to see more bankruptucy filings, but wait a minute, The government just took that away from them.

I really don't understand how a party thats runs on moral values and believing in God can favor a system towards the rich and corporations. I'm not saying reform wasn't needed for bankruprucy, but you don't have to punish everybody for abusing the system. But yet here we are running a huge deficit and preparing to give away huge tax breaks to the energy companies for a energy plan that does nothing for consumers (another topic).

I just don't get it.

Do you agree that persons with ability to repay debts should be required by the government to repay them?

cgorham, read the question carefully. Especially the phrase "with ability to repay debts". If you CAN pay, why should you get a free ride on your debts?
As I stated before, every person that I personally know (about half a dozen) who has filed bankruptcy was/is lacking in financial good sense and responsibility. They spent beyond their income to enjoy a lifestyle they could not sustain. They put no money in savings except for the company savings plan if they had one, and had to withdraw that, paying the penalty for early withdrawal because they made some basically stupid decisions. Yes, the credit card companies, new car salesmen, new home sales persons, etc. suck us in with easy credit, but the ultimate blame is ours and ours alone. None of us DESERVE a lifestyle we cannot afford.
Medical bills alone are NOT to blame, most persons filing were already in trouble before the medical bills came along. Loss of jobs IS likely a major contributor as we have had some tough times lately and a lot of people have lost their jobs. I lost mine over 2 years ago. But, I have been saving for over 25 years for early retirement, just didn't know the early retirement would be so early. So I was prepared to an extent. This bill just MAY teach us some fiscal responsibility, and once we learn it, maybe we will insist our government leaders to do the same.

Bill55AZ, yes I would agree that people who have the ability to pay back their debts should. But this bill affects everyone including those who don't have the ability to pay back their debts. Here's a question for you, does that include corporations who file for bankruptucy?

You tell me how corporations can file for bankruptucy and the shareholders and CEO get off the hook and still keep their assets? This bill does nothing to address that problem which is why its totally unfair. Also as CJ pointed out in his earlier posts, there have been several amendments to this bill that would exclude those are don't have the ability to pay back their debts such as military veterans, people who lose their employment, etc. and yet the Republican-led Congress rejected ALL of them. (again, where are the religious conservatives for the poor, still waiting for an answer)

But we should all know politics played a HUGED part in this bill on behalf of the credit card industry. How can you ignore the fact the Republicans (and some Democrats) receive campiagn donations from this industry and it doesn't play a factor in the lawmakers decision to support this bill. No surprise for President Bush's decision to support this bill because most people know he is a corporate puppet. Its quite obvious now for our pro-business (anti-consumer) President. Even if you do acknowledge that fact the politicans who supported this bill are wrong, why support them over the less fortunate?? I'm not trying to say give up your beliefs, but where is the compassion for the poor in this bill or any bill the Republicans propose?

Bill, this is the misconception that keeps getting repeated even though there are absolutely no facts to support it.

I have cited in this thread hard facts about the causes for bankruptcy, yet the proponents of this bill seem to continue to fall back on the line "you shouldn't have a lifestyle you can't afford". This is a crystal clear of right-wing brainwashing.

Medical debts account for the vast majority of bankruptcies, see previous posts for evidence. And you are wrong, most of these people didn't have financial problems beforehand. I don't care whether you make $40,000 a year or $100,000 a year if you get some kind of condition that your insurance doesn't cover (or you don't have insurance in the first place) and rack up medical debts in the 6 figures range, you aren't going to be able to pay that off.

As I have also stated in this thread, unemployment is the second biggest cause. Just because you were somewhat prepared because you were working for 25+ years does not mean everyone in that situation is the same. When you lose your job, especially if you are the chief income earner and have a family, debts start adding up. I knew people here in California that were unemployed for as much as 1.5 years during the bust. They weren't exactly sitting on their tails not doing anything and they did whatever they could to make money including taking low paying stuff like temp jobs. Since most of these people were in their 20's they could exactly just retire like you.

On the list of bankruptcy causes, being irresponsible with your money by overconsuming ranks near last on the list and is the exception far more than the norm.

This bill is a corporate handout, pure and simple. It doesn't do a single thing in the better interests of the American people, in fact it harms them. Yet you don't see that because you have been brainwashed with this notion of "only people who overspend file for bankruptcy and they get what they deserve".

Do you agree that persons with ability to repay debts should be required by the government to repay them?

Not if they have come by these debts through medical expenses. It is appalling that this country treats health care like a commodity. Period. End of story.



Yes, I do. The credit card companies should have to eat the debt. The burden is on them to not be offering credit to people who have not demonstrated some capability of repaying such debt.

All I want to say to Cube Jockey is Amen! I filed bankruptcy 4 years ago, and it hasn't been easy. To get a $8,000 car, I had to pay $16,000. I can't get a house, unless I pay a high interest rate and pay a huge downpayment. I get charged 19% APR on all my credit cards. Forget about getting a business loan. You know the reason I had to file bankruptcy? Because I was making $4.75 an hour, trying to pay rent and utilities, and pay for school, while still trying to find money to eat with. That's why I ended up filing bankruptcy, because I was trying to live. Under this new law, do you think that if I could pay my bills prior to filing bankruptcy, that I could pay them after filing bankruptcy? The only people that this bill is going to hurt are those that were in my situation...those that couldn't pay their bills in the first place. Do you think credit card companies are going to be at all lenient after this bill has gone into effect? How would you feel if you had credit card companies harassing you at work? I did....and let's say it didn't exactly give the managers the feeling that I had promotion potential...

I have cited in this thread hard facts about the causes for bankruptcy, yet the proponents of this bill seem to continue to fall back on the line "you shouldn't have a lifestyle you can't afford". This is a crystal clear of right-wing brainwashing.

What part of this makes sense? WHY should we have a lifestyle we cannot afford?
If it is right-wing brainwashing, my grown children are thanking me for it. They don't have as many toys as some of their friends, but they have very little debt, which consists of a house mortgage and one car payment each, thru their mortage company based on substantial equity in thier homes. Their secondary cars are old and paid for. No credit card debt is allowed. Yes, I still have that much influence over my children. I will be working on the grandchildren as they get older as well.
AND, they either have jobs that provide medical insurance, or they buy their own, rather than risk losing everything due to some unforeseen illness.

Medical debts account for the vast majority of bankruptcies, see previous posts for evidence. And you are wrong, most of these people didn't have financial problems beforehand. I don't care whether you make $40,000 a year or $100,000 a year if you get some kind of condition that your insurance doesn't cover (or you don't have insurance in the first place) and rack up medical debts in the 6 figures range, you aren't going to be able to pay that off.

Medical debts account for the majority of REASONS for bankruptcies, or the majority of the dollar amount of debt for which they seek relief?
I don't know how either of us can prove the existence, or non-existence, of financial "problems" beforehand. I can only speak from the experience I have observed when others have to file. To me, financial problems are when we are buying a bunch of toys we don't need and have to make payments on, or having a luxury car when a cheaper car will do. Yes, we can handle the payments, for now, so it does not appear to be a problem, not yet anyway. Maybe you have a different definition of problem.
Again, insurance for MOST of us is not that expensive. For me, since it would cost my teacher wife over $7000 per year to add me to her coverage, I went to BCBS and I pay $130 per month for $5000 deductible. I have a history of colon cancer in my family, and it is already known that I am a prime candidate for future treatment, and they covered that situation. As I have already said, that is beer or cigarette money fo those who drink or smoke. Similar coverage is being purchased by my teacher son to cover his wife and children, at far less than the $7000 per year that he would have to pay thru his job at the same school district.
For those who fall in the category of not being able to get coverage for certain conditions, I would favor government help to pay those debts. Hospitals have to make money to keep their doors open.

As I have also stated in this thread, unemployment is the second biggest cause. Just because you were somewhat prepared because you were working for 25+ years does not mean everyone in that situation is the same. When you lose your job, especially if you are the chief income earner and have a family, debts start adding up. I knew people here in California that were unemployed for as much as 1.5 years during the bust. They weren't exactly sitting on their tails not doing anything and they did whatever they could to make money including taking low paying stuff like temp jobs. Since most of these people were in their 20's they could exactly just retire like you.

I can partially agree with this, especially with the recent exporting of jobs overseas, high tech companies reducing manpower, etc. I have several friends younger than me who spent 1 to 2 years unemployed, and when they found jobs, their pay was not as high as previously. It sucks, yes, but it still does not justify suspension of debt when they overspent on luxuries thinking that their future was a constant on-ramp to the freeway of riches. Again, WHAT makes any of us think we deserve a lifestyle we cannot afford? Just because we can make the minimal payments on our debts does not mean we can "afford" it.
And whatever happened to the concept of saving for a rainy day? Self sufficiency? Being prepared for life's bumps and bruises?
Too many of us are grasshoppers, not enough of us are ants.
I can say this for sure, we ants sleep well at night.....

What justifies bankruptcy when an individual's or family's income goes to zero is the simple inability to pay any debt. That's the classic case of Chap 7. Liquidation takes place of those luxury toys when they have retained value -- this changes from state-to-state.

Chapter 13 involves still having an income, but not enough to do all the bills. This is common after divorce, and most common with divorced women who have children. This bill hits divorced women with children the most. Seems like a mean thing to do.

So, what gives a Floridian filing for Chap 7 to keep a home *of any and all values*? Well, that's state law. The bankruptcy bill doesn't require an owner to sell a multi-million dollar home in Florida.

So as the ants work, the fox raids the henhouse. A mixed metaphor for a mixed system.

An interesting thing came through during a business report last week: Seems that the foreign outsourcers are now turning down American contracts in favor of their own domestic work. Seems also that wages are going up for the foreign outsourcers. This will leave a big shortage for skilled information age workers in the US. Hey, good for my and many others' bottom lines!

Um, it's too late for this bill to hit enough people in order for the banks to make more money if the wave of bankruptcies is over. Early enough to push people into considering national health care, and for women considering divorce to be very careful when divying up joint resources.

It is good to hear from someone who has actually been down that hard road. Your story tells us that filing bankruptcy is not a complete or final solution to debt problems. The power is not in the consumer's hands, never was, in case any of us are suffering that particular delusion. The only way to retain some power is to not allow ourselves to become victims of the system. I was lucky in that I had parents who made nearly all the mistakes that can be made, thus serving as a bad example. Hey, a bad example can be learned from, if you are paying attention, right? Sadly, I know a few who have been down the hard road, and are about to do it again. The smart ones among us learn from the mistakes of others, the slow ones have to learn the hard way, and the stupid have to make the same mistake more than once. Prime example of stupid is a person I know who has enough "invested" in DVDs/CDs/VHS tapes/computer software alone that it exceeds the cost of a nice new car, and this is after losing a car back to a finance company. This does not include the associated hardware needed to use all that stuff. He is young, single, and thinks he is a catch. I pity the woman with real financial assets who falls for him, as he will drag her into debt in no time. I also know a man older than me who has done just that to 2 women already, lucky for him the 3rd wife really is rich enough to afford his habits.
But for the most part, it appears that there are too few of us who remember what it is like to be poor, and how easy it is to fall back into that situation.
A little paranoia can be a good thing.

I am not disagreeing with you Bill, I don't think we deserve what we cannot afford. Where I have a problem is you are using that little gem to paint every bankruptcy out there. It is pretty much verbatim the spin that has been coming from the right wing on this. If you file for bankruptcy then you are clearly some degenerate that was buying $500 shoes on your credit card when you were making $40,000 a year.

Bankruptcy is a way to start over when the unexpected happens. As I have cited numerous times in this thread (are facts not important anymore), the majority of bankruptcies happen because of circumstances beyond an individual's control - not because they are living beyond their means.

The other inaccuracy coming out of the right wing noise machine is that bankruptcy is easy and simply makes your debts go away, no personal pain involved. This couldn't be further from the truth. Your life will be very difficult after a bankruptcy filing because most people don't quite understand how important credit is for every day things. Everything from getting car insurance to getting electricity.

The reality is that these overconsumption bankruptcies account for a very small percentage of bankruptcies filed. The GOp has decided they are going to demolish the side of the house, just to fix a broken window here. Not to mention all of the benefits that their corporate sponsors will get out of this.

The bill is completely heartless and vile and does nothing to address the real problems. In fact it hurts many of the people that vote Republican the most. In a previous post I cited the top ten states filing for bankruptcy - guess what, most of them are red states. Makes you wonder why they would be passing something like this.


Why does your assumption always come back to this? Why do you assume that anyone who goes into debt is buying luxuries?

If someone is unemployed for 1 to 2 years, they aren't treating themselves to $50 an entree dinners or shopping trips at Banana Republic. These people are paying for their electricity with credit cards, paying other credit cards with credit cards and in a lot of cases their rent.

It'd be great to say that everyone who becomes unemployed should have a considerable nest egg, but the reality is the very vast majority does not have significant savings. Period. So what do you do here, just let these people get hopelessly into debt with no chance of being productive or successful again just because they had a run of bad luck or their corporation shipped their job overseas to save a few bucks? How does that benefit society?

I am always amazed at the high-minded outrage and level of antipathy generated by those who judge everyone who declares bankruptcy as a spendthrift deadbeat loser. I declared bankruptcy in 1994-5. My situation: in late 1992, I lost my lucrative job in aerospace to mass layoffs, got a job 3 months later making 25% less with fewer benefits, got laid off from that job on January 7, 1994. On January 17 of that year, the Northridge earthquake decided to remodel my house. I was very proud of the fact that I had bought my own home at age 28. I lived in it for nearly 13 years when all this came to happened. I’m just a regular working stiff, single, no husband or sugar daddy or well-off relatives to “take care of” me when times are tough. I don’t think I’m in any way unique. Bankruptcy allowed me to put the pieces of my life back together…and if I had just included Citibank Visa in the BK, my life would have been a whole helluva lot easier, but that’s another story.

I’m sure there are bankruptcy abuses just like there are abuses everywhere. That does not mean the majority of those who make the difficult decision to ruin their credit for 10 years are deadbeats or crooks. The real crooks make out like bandits when they declare, and even with this new law, still will. And I don't consider myself a deadbeat or a crook, and resent anyone who would characterize me as such.



One of my favorite authors, Carl Hiaasen was on 60 Minutes last night, and this bit of the interview is pertinent to the topic:

I am not judging or assuming anything about anybody. I don't have to come down on anyone's side automatically, but I am flexible enough to do so if the situation warrants. Those not agreeing with me don't need to get defensive just because I am not extending sympathy without knowing all the facts about your individual cases, or those of your friends who may be having this problem. That isn't relevant anyway.
Yes, there are many cases of sudden unemployment, and it is harder on the younger worker, as I said. We oldsters are more likely to be prepared, but not always.
I do not deal in absolutes and rarely use the words always, "every", none, or never.
I can use "every" in my personal experience with bankruptcies, or near bankruptcies, tho, as every one who I personally know who has filed bankruptcy made many foolish decisions before they got to the brink. There are many, many more who are approaching the brink and seem oblivous to their predicament.
Yes, I am in a good situation, but it didn't happen by accident, or overnight. Thinking long term, planning for the future, practicing delayed gratification, etc. is how you get there. I am not discounting the overall good health I and my family have enjoyed, that is important to financial health.
The desire for instant gratification is how the ones I personally know have ended up in their predicament. IMHO, no sane person carries the kind of credit card debt that these acquaintences do.
BTW, altho I am listed as Republican, I am also listed as a moderate. I don't like the religious right, the far right, or the corruption in the corporate world, but that is also not exactly relevant. The fact is, each of us are on our own. It is not the smartest of things to do to expect our government, big business, or even our families to protect us from our own mistakes. I seriously doubt a liberal regime would be much more sympathic to the situation, as they take contributions from the creditor companies just as quickly as conservative politicians.
Moderation is a key aspect of my life, as I have witnessed the excesses of others that sometimes leads to a downfall, or at least a lower level of enjoyment in their retirement years.
My sympathies do extend to those getting treated like expendable peasantry by the managers who would rather have a layoff than actually get rid of dead wood. I have seen that first hand. But again, a little paranoia is a good thing. Expect the worst to happen, prepare for it, and be pleasantly surprised when it doesn't.
This is simply good advice, take it or leave it.

I love how some people tend to characterize this as a partisan Republican piece of legislation. The fact is that this Bill passed through Congress with fairly hefty super majorities and was supported by such "right wing" loonies as Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and Robert Byrd.

This law was as bi-partisan as any bill in recent memory.

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 108

Law makers from both parties felt this was good legislation. Trying to pin this on the "right wing noise machine" is a bit disingenuous.

I think it's more a "rich wing/poor wing" dividing line, rather than right/left. Politicians, regardless of party, ain't poor. This bill has been languishing for many years, and the only thing keeping it from being passed before now was Democratic opposition. Now that the Democrats have been thoroughly cowed, it sails right on through. Funny how that works.

In hindsight, I thought I'd better back that up with sources before it bites me in the hindsight.

Don't care if the bill was partisan, bi-partisan, tri-partisan, whatever! Its wrong. It puts much of the burden on the working-class folks. Thats all this Congress (majority Republican) and adminstration (which also happens to be Republican) has done is look out for the wealthy. It doesn't help Americans especially in times of stagnant wages ,contiuned job losses, high gas prices, higher property taxes, etc.

Lets look past this blind partisan loyalship. Lets focus on helping real Americans and not those who already have much.

Yes you can, but when we are debating a national issue do you think that is really valid? Do you think that everyone in the United States happens to be in the same situation as the people you know? The statistics cited numerous times prove that everyone isn't in the situation you are familiar with.

When you are passing federal legislation, you have to take a larger view. As I said in my previous post the government has taken the approach of tearing down the side of a house to fix the window and this is going to hurt far more people than it helps.

The reason I have come down on you here is because you use your personal experience to justify the law and therefore you make it sound like everyone in the United States that files for bankruptcy is some sort of fiscally irresponsible degenerate. The statistics prove you wrong.

The law should be justified on its merits and the effect it will have on society, not on your personal experience.


And I love how you are ignoring the facts of what was going on when the law was being debated. The votes for all the amendments in the senate are right here in this thread. Also, looking at the democrats who voted for this - a great many of them are from states that are the corporate headquarters of credit card companies... The two senators (democratic) from Deleware voted for this... the credit card capital of the country and home to MBNA? Yep, that was a surprise.

I'm just glad that both Feinstein and Boxer voted no, otherwise I wouldn't be voting for them in the next election.

Well, cube jockey, you can read all my posts again if you like, and you will NOT find where I said that every one who files bankruptcy is in the same situation of those who I personally know.
And again, as Mark Twain said, "there are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics". Anyone can tweak the data to make it read what he wants, and oftentimes the data is collected in such a way as to predetermine the outcome. Did you notice who did the studies?
I am 59 as of yesterday, and at least from the age of 12 was able to notice what was going on around me. That gives me a lot of years of observation to learn from my mistakes, and the mistakes of others around me. I haven't lived in some kind of rose tinted bubble all those years. I started out poor, and did what I could do alleviate that conditon.
There are those of us who are very unlikely to ever have to file bankruptcy, because they don't try to live beyond their means, and prepare for the future.
Then there are those who earn a dollar and immediately spend two dollars.
I believe that LONG TERM, this law will be a good thing. It could even be that the credit card companies will suffer some loss of income because of this law.
On this and many other long term issues, the pendulum is always swinging. In a few years, there may have to be adjustments made to the current laws. But those who want to sit around and do nothing about problems such as this are beyond educating. Even if the law is not yet perfect, I applaud the efforts made ON OUR BEHALF to force us into fiscal responsibility. Parts of the law may be unfair, more or less depending on your state of residence, but that is the way it is. You do know, I am sure, that losses suffered by creditors due to our bankruptcies are tax deductible? Who makes up the taxes that they don't have to pay, and our government "needs", and spends. The rest of us do.
BTW, I probably know more people who COULD have filed bankrupcy, but did not, than I know who are constantly abusuing either the system or their own financial future or both. And I will always lean toward my many years of personal experience than toward a study done by someone with a vested interest.
If you have an alternative method of dealing with bankruptcies, let's hear it. My method is to do all we can to avoid getting into the situation in the first place. That is sane, and logical.
Or could it be that some of us are so biased against the Republicans/conservatives among us that they can't see the logic and sanity in a bit of preventive financial medicine?
One of your quotes: The problems of today will not be solved by the same thinking that produced the problems in the first place.- Albert Einstein

Well I'm a fan of Mark Twain too, but unfortunately that doesn't refute the studies. They are posted in the thread if you'd care to debunk them.

And you have consistently argued in this thread that this bankruptcy law was a good thing because of your personal experiences.


And I suppose that means that you know for an absolute certainty that you aren't going to come down with cancer or heart disease and possibly find yourself without insurance right?

Even right here, in this sentence, you still continue to equate bankruptcy with poor choices in life when the evidence overwhelmingly proves you wrong. As has been stated in numerous studies, over 50% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. Gee I guess all those deadbeats got really sick and incurred six figure debts so they could get out of paying their visa bill huh?


Uh, how exactly would the credit card companies lose money here? They are making it harder to file for bankruptcy therefore that means more people will be stuck paying for debts at near usurous interest rates. That equates to dollars on their bottom line.

Do you think that this law is going to stop people from getting sick? Do you think it is going to fix the health care system so people can't get nailed for six figures because they have cancer? Do you think it is going to ensure no one loses their job again? Do you think it'll mean people don't use their credit cards on a daily basis? Is it going to stop credit card companies from conning college students into a credit card for the price of a cheap hanes t-shirt? Is it going to stop them from sending offers to everyone designed to play on your psychology and get you to spend more money?

It does none of that, what it does is it hurts average Americans by taking away one of the protections they have from the things in life that just "happen". It makes it harder for them to start over and get their lives back in order.

But you know who it continues to protect? The people with tons of money. The people that can set up asset trusts. The people that abuse the system right now. Corporations.

It does nothing to solve the problem. Not one single person in this thread, not a single one, has presented anything remotely approaching an argument supporting this bill as a good thing™.



And you know how that could be applied here? By holding credit card companies accountable. By making the rich play by the same rules as the rest of us. By making corporations play by the same rules as the rest of us.

As I posted earlier in this thread there was a special on PBS Frontline done last year called the Secret History of the Credit Card. I bet you didn't know that credit card companies spent big bucks on psychological surveys to determine that a 2% minimum payment was far better than a 5% minimum (how it used to be) because if people see they have to pay less each month they'll spend more and only pay the minimum ensuring big bucks in interest fees for the credit card company and ensuring the consumer stays in debt forever.

How about fixing the health care system? That would eliminate half the bankruptcies right there, that would sure be a lot better than this bill.

You can't use my quote against me if you don't even understand what it means.

And you have consistently argued in this thread that this bankruptcy law was a good thing because of your personal experiences.
That is your extremely liberal interpretation of what I said. If it changes the instant gratification mindset of our overly indulged populace, it could very well be a good thing. Time will tell.

The credit card companies are not making it difficult to file bankruptcy, our government is. Of course, all of our politicians are in the pockets of big business and they all hate us lowly citizens. Even many of the democrats!!! Surely debtor prisons are the next thing to be signed into law. I don't see a slippery slope here.

I think that we will find that with debt relief less available, people may be less willing to go into debt. Ask anyone who has been through it once if they want to do it again. Well, some will do it again, but they don't really want to. Less use of credit means less need for credit companies. It's possible, don't you think? They don't earn any money off me, except for the amount they charge the businesses I buy from.

I agree that credit card companies are using all their many skills to manipulate us into using their services to our own detriment, but since we now KNOW that, why do we still do it? We are weak and stupid? Who is to blame for that? Not ourselves, certainly. And we need protection from whom, our creditors, or ourselves?
Yours is the party that encourages weakness and stupidity, and therefore servitude and yes, even slavery, to our many wants and desires that are forced upon us by the advertisers and sales staffs who come into our homes and make us sign our financial future away.
A good read, tho out of print and may be hard to find, is "the Hidden Persuaders" that was put out by Consumers Reports many years ago. It gives a bit of insight as to how we are constantly manipulated by marketers, advertisers, etc. Think of it as inoculation against those methods, it helps you turn a deaf ears to commercials.

I have insurance, told you that several times. Paid for out of my own pocket.
Do you? If not, why not?

I am a conservative primarily in financial matters, especially my own personal financial matters. I do not think it would be good if everyone was like me, as the economy would crash around our ears in a very short time. I am grateful for the many who spend money like there is no tomorrow, like the neighbor with 4 heavy duty trucks or SUV's. Not an economy car in the bunch. His kind of spending keeps the economy going, and keeps many people employed.

If our leaders will provide to us a free or cheap catastropic insurance plan that protects us from financial disaster because we get some major illness, I will support it with my taxes even tho I am not likely to need it. Some of us are not so lucky, and have health problems beyond or control, and need help. Most of us do not. I cannot support cradle to grave medical care for every little thing and certainly not for those who abuse their bodies with excessive use of harmful substances, or who practice incredibly unsafe sex with complete strangers. The government is not my mother, my keeper, or my sugar daddy. It should take care of only those of us who can't take care of ourselves, not those who won't take care of ourselves.

Easy bankruptcy is not good for anyone.
We both appear to be stubborn. Well, you are stubborn, I am "persistent".
For the sake of bandwidth, I quit. You can have the last, liberal word on the subject.

I stumbled across a very interesting site of an organization called "Demos" (no, not Democrats, it's pronounced D-eee-mos) It is described as a “nonprofit, nonpartisan research and public policy organization working on issues related to economic security.” DEMOS

The Director of Demos' Economic Opportunity Program, Tamara Draut, testified before the House Financial Services Committee a month or so ago regarding credit card companies’ role in pushing Americans toward bankruptcy. The testimony is available as a PDF file and is well worth the read for those who think there is more to the personal bankruptcy issue than just irresponsibility.


What credit card companies do to consumers is akin to the sneaky, crooked behavior we see on the part of politicians; is it any wonder they're in bed with each other?

Here's a personal note: I've been paying off all my credit debt in order to buy a home. I paid off Dell computer in February (online). The next month I got a bill for $57. I called, they gave me some song and dance about interest and whatnot (why didn't the payoff amount reflect that in Feb? Who knows?) and a LATE fee (!!). I haggled with them, finally agreed to pay $27...with a $10 fee to pay over the phone. Yesterday, I receive yet ANOTHER bill from Dell for $11. So I call them again (talking to someone in India, of course). Once more, some fairy tale about interest. I asked them how many times did I have to pay off the account before it's finally paid off?? They eventually agreed to waive whatever it was they were trying to charge me for. We'll see what happens next month. This is like the credit account that wouldn't die! And how many people get suckered like this every single day?

Bill this is exactly what I'm talking about. You are using phrases like one I underlined above. That suggests that you believe that bankruptcy is largely due to deadbeats spending beyond their means. Every single example you have cited supports this, and every time you rebut one of my posts this is the kind of thing you come back with. I'm really not sure what other conclusion you'd like me to draw since every post has been essentially the same.

The simple fact of the matter is, people going into debt is not the problem! As I and others have stated numerous times in this thread the #1 problem is medical debt and the #2 problem is unemployment. Both of those are things generally beyond one's control, especially the first one. Both of those things also don't involve living beyond your means. As I stated earlier there are still a few more things that factor in higher than being irresponsible, like divorce. Being irresponsible with your money is last on the list and is the smallest cause.

And people are not going to stop using credit cards because bankruptcy protection is harder to obtain. There are plenty of things that credit card companies actively do to encourage spending (none of which you have bothered to refute) and in reality it is a bigger cultural problem. Everyone is a consumer and we are all trained almost from birth to buy, buy, buy.

My sympathy doesn't lie with the people that go and charge up 10's of thousands of dollars on their cards and then realize they can't pay. My sympathy lies with the family where their breadwinner got cancer and the insurance wouldn't cover it. My sympathy lies with the person that is unemployed and ends up paying for rent, electric, etc with their credit cards and gets hopelessly into debt. My sympathy is with people in Daffy's situation that just have a run of bad luck that wipes them out.

Your responses indicate you don't care about these people, because you only believe bankruptcy is for deadbeats. I don't know how many more ways I can continue telling you that you are wrong and proving it with evidence.

I didn't think I could find anything more that would make this bankruptcy bill even more odious than it is, but I was wrong. All of these amendments to the bankruptcy bill were proposed by Democrats, which may have offered the individual consumer some modicum of protection were rejected 100% by the Republicans and even a few Democrats.


...and many, many more provisions that would have indicated some minute level of understanding of real life out here among the working folk.

So, if you’re rich, you can protect your assets by buying luxury homes in generous states such as Utah or Florida. If you are a crooked CEO and drive your company into the ground and rip off thousands of employees of their retirement, that’s OK, too. If you’re identity is stolen and the thief runs up thousands of dollars of debt, tough luck. And if you’re deathly ill or unemployed and stuck with a crushing load of credit debt, there is no limit to the usurious interest rates the company can charge. Heck, you’d be better off borrowing from the Mob!

And just to put the icing on the cake, let’s see how our elected “leaders” support our troops:

Those would be the same servicemembers who have had to leave their jobs here at home, and in some cases have had their tours extended? Those same servicemembers who have seen their benefits cut?

I have to wonder how this bill will affect an already struggling economy?

[quote=Cube Jockey,Apr 19 2005, 04:33 PM]
[/quote]
Bill this is exactly what I'm talking about. You are using phrases like one I underlined above. That suggests that you believe that bankruptcy is largely due to deadbeats spending beyond their means.

Rage, Rage against the lying of the right.
Your words, indicating a severe bias on your part. You know I never said anything like what you are suggesting I said, and I don't recall ever using the word deadbeat, which further indicates your extreme left bias against me and all others who you perceive to be to the right of your position. If you really believe that no truth, or worthwhile opinion, can come from the right, then you are not part of any solution.
Or it could just mean that you are a liar? Well, I won't debate a liar.

And people are not going to stop using credit cards because bankruptcy protection is harder to obtain. There are plenty of things that credit card companies actively do to encourage spending (none of which you have bothered to refute) and in reality it is a bigger cultural problem. Everyone is a consumer and we are all trained almost from birth to buy, buy, buy.

Yeah, even I said that, and that is part of the problem. So now that you know, are you going to let it continue affecting YOUR financial future? Take some control over your life and stop letting your "from birth training" push you around.

Your responses indicate you don't care about these people, because you only believe bankruptcy is for deadbeats. I don't know how many more ways I can continue telling you that you are wrong and proving it with evidence.

I clearly said that I sympathize with those who get caught up in situations beyond their control, and I also said that those situations are not beyond the control for MOST of us. Again you want to twist my words to fit your opinion of someone who you percieve as part of the "right".

[/quote]

I said you could have the last word, and you have offer