Nbadan
03-06-2005, 05:57 AM
Dumping on debtors
Republicans in Congress are pushing a bankruptcy bill that would hurt consumers while helping to enrich the credit card industry.
A Times Editorial
Published March 5, 2005
Prodded by the banking and credit industries, Republicans in Congress have been trying for years to make it more difficult for people to wipe away credit card debt by filing for personal bankruptcy. Their latest attempt would hurt consumers and impose no responsibility on a credit card industry that spreads easy credit around like free money.
In essence, the Senate bill would make it more difficult for people with modest resources to wipe out their debts completely by filing for bankruptcy. Now, consumers who file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy are given a new start and may go forward debt-free. Under Chapter 13, debts are reorganized and a payment plan is established.
The bill would limit Chapter 7 filings to those debtors who earn less than the median income in their state. That covers about 80 percent of bankruptcy filers. With some exceptions, nearly everyone else would have to file under Chapter 13.
The credit card industry wants the change because it says too many consumers are gaming the system - spending heavily on luxury items and then walking away from the bills. In 2003, one out of 73 households declared bankruptcy. But while there are irresponsible spenders who think nothing of racking up charges they know they can't pay, a significant proportion of debtors seeking relief have been financially crippled by medical expenses, unemployment or divorce. More than half of those over 65 who apply for bankruptcy are driven to it by medical bills.
The current system already has the capacity to make those who have the resources pay their debts. Bankruptcy judges have the discretion to make that determination on a case-by-case basis, taking the individual circumstances of each bankruptcy filer into account. The proposed changes would make the system more inflexible and determine who has the ability to repay their debts by looking at the last six months of income, even if a person seeking bankruptcy is now unemployed.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., tried to make the measure less draconian. But the GOP-led Senate defeated his attempts to protect the homes of the elderly with a $150,000 homestead exemption and an exemption for heavy medical expenses.
The Republicans have no interest in making provisions for consumers, including military families, who find themselves in financial trouble for tragic reasons. They also have no interest in reining in the credit card industry that now sends out 5-billion offers of credit a year. This proposed revision of bankruptcy law has one purpose: to make one of the most profitable industries in America even richer.
The Petersburg Times (http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/05/Opinion/Dumping_on_debtors.shtml)
More on the topic from the Oregon Times (http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1109941450323821.xml)...
This legislation, though, sets the means test level low, treats all families alike -- as if they are guilty of profligate spending -- and is too rigid about letting judges look at contributing factors. Only those earning less than the median income, about $43,000, could discharge their debts through bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy judges would not be free to gauge individual circumstances and react to true, blameless hardship. So the bill would stack the law in credit card lenders' favor and against average citizens. The lenders would be freed from many results of their reckless issuing of credit cards and their risk-measurement failure to estimate the creditworthiness of their customers.
The result would sentence hundreds of thousands of families to be lenders' indentured servants, unable to escape crushing debts from not irresponsibility but huge medical bills, loss of employment or company pension failures. <snip>
Clinton knew this would hurt poor people so he vetoed it. He "saved" the Demos who voted for it in order to keep the Credit Ccard people in their pockets..but this time around there is no Clinton to veto it. Bush is LOVING the opportunity to pay back (BIG..HUGE) to the CC companies and banks...and at the smae time, put the hurt on a BUNCH of lawyers. Lawyers make a lot of money on bankruptcies, because they are pretty cut and dried, and the client does most of the actual legwork.
With the new changes, it will be "dangerous" for lawyers to even represent clients and if they do, they will have to charge so much, that impoverished people will not even be able to afford them..
This is why we have heard SS over and over and over.. the really dirty deal (THIS BILL) is going unnoticed by most people.
Nbadan
03-07-2005, 03:48 AM
Great rant by MaryScott O'Conner on Kos today about the Republican-backed 04' Bankruptcy reform bill...
The Republican Senators's Summary Rejection of every single amendment to S. 256 proposed by any Democratic Senators; the breadth of the Republican Senators's corrupt, heartless, punitive - and unabashedly corporate cocksucking gestures, in the form of the refusal to temper this appalling "Bankruptcy Reform Bill" with ANY ameliorative amendments for the elderly, the infirm OR our beloved troooooops, past or present.
Warning: Today's Outrage involves the sort of blatant "in your face, we control everything, fuck yourselves, all your testicles are belong to us" taunting and gloating we can expect to see from the Republican-controlled Legislative and Executive branches until at least 2006. Maybe if we're good little proles they'll let us play with the Judiciary for a few minutes before Renquist chokes on his own tracheal spew and George W. Bush gets to play Fuck the Constitution for A Generation or More by raising Scalia to Chief Justice and appointing some brownshirted servant of the Antichrist to the bench in the same breath...
It's been talked about at length over the past 72 hours or so, because over the past 72 hours or so... the Democratic Senators (surrogates of We, the People) suffered a metaphorical anal rape of immeasurably humiliating proportions by the Republican Senators (surrogates of They, the Massive Corporations).
Without lubrication.
Let me break this down as simply as I can (and if I get stuff wrong, let me know, I'll edit):
You can learn a lot from the Role Call Vote Summary.
On the linked page, you see a listing of each Amendment to S. 256, sponsored by Democratic Senators. You can stumble around the links on that sucker for days, if you so choose.
The details of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 -- a Draconian piece of shit so OBVIOUSLY crafted as a Republican Paean to MBNA (the LARGEST SINGLE CONTRIBUTOR to the REPUBLICAN PARTY -- never, ever forget that) and their co-conspirators, in a giant "Fuck You, Assholes -- We Want MORE!" - are horrifying in the extreme.
As far as I can TELL, the "Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection" occurs in Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 - the INDIVIDUAL avenues of bankruptcy. Conspicuous in its absence, evidently not NEEEEEDING reform, is Chapter 11. Want to guess what Chapter 11 covers? Ding ding ding ding ding! Yes! You guessed it, you lucky bastard - Chapter 11 is bankruptcy for BUSINESSSSSSESSSSSS.
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy is the most common type of bankruptcy proceeding. It is a liquidation type of proceeding (as opposed to a reorganization proceeding). All of the debtor's assets, with the exception of "exempt" property, will be sold, and the proceeds will be used to pay their debts. If the proceeds are not enough to pay off all the debts, unpaid amounts on "dischargeable debts" will be discharged.
Chapter 13 Bankruptcy is what is known as reorganization bankruptcy. Chapter 13 bankruptcy is filed by individuals who want to pay off their debts over a period of three to five years. This type of bankruptcy appeals to individuals who have non-exempt property that they want to keep. It is also only an option for individuals who have predictable income and whose income is sufficient to pay their reasonable expenses with some amount left over to pay off their debts.
Chapter 11 is typically used for business bankruptcies and restructuring. It is not commonly used by individual consumers since it is far more complex and expensive to pursue. It allows businesses to reorganize themselves, giving them an opportunity to restructure debt and get out from under certain burdensome leases and contracts. Typically a business is allowed to continue to operate while it is in Chapter 11, although it does so under the supervision of the Bankruptcy Court and its appointees.
Apparently the only people the Republicans think are abusive of the bankruptcy laws are individuals, and the only people needing "protections" are the ones called Corporations. God knows, more damage has been done by individuals in this world than ANY giant, all-powerful corporation. Heck, I can't even THINK of any abuses of the system perpetrated by a giant, all-powerful corporation that might merit consideration of reforms...
Okay, we need to set aside, for the moment, the unmitigated gall of this Republican Cabal and their cheap, clumsy and blatant servicing of the Almighty Corporation.
My god, though - this is how far it's gone: these disease-ridden Republican whores are down on their knees, sucking for all they're worth (and that's a lot of motherfucking net worth, baby) - in broad daylight on MAIN Street. Their johns just stand there, gnarled old corporate fingers of one hand twisted in tightly glued toupee, waving the cash around with the other hand like a plaster rabbit at a greyhound race. And they KNOW the cops aren't looking, because they paid the bag man 8 years in advance.
But I digress. It's what I do. Anyway... Bitterly satisfying as an extended rant might momentarily be, there are larger issues here.
What's germane here is that the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005" WILL pass. The only thing that could possibly stop it would be a filibuster, and, frankly, that would really only delay the passage of this leviathan - and what's more, we don't have the votes for a filibuster.
Sure, on paper, we have enough Democrats for a filibuster. But we don't REALLY have the votes for a filibuster. Think they can't find 5 measly Democratic Senators to bend over and not even have the goddamned self-respect to ask for a reach-around? Forget it. We're fucked, we're fucked hard, and there's just no getting out from under it. So to speak.
And the Bankruptcy Reform gang bang has been in full swing for 3 days, now.
Dig it... this is what's happened, in a nutshell, over the past 3 days in the hallowed halls of the United States Senate...
(Hint: The voting was beautifully consistent. In several votes, 3 Democrats, to be named later herein, voted with the Republicans (every single damned one -- not ONE Republican voted against Party lines) on the following amendments, whose descriptions ought to make it pretty clear what kind of bastards we're dealing with.)
Now, you can probably figure it out from the wording of the amendments, but don't be ashamed if you can't - it took me the better part of 4 hours to read through all this shit.
(And may I say, I bet more Americans would be better informed if trying to read a Senate or House bill (or an amendment to either) weren't like trying to wade through fucking SOURCE CODE. It's OUTRAGEOUS. I'm a highly intelligent, moderately well-educated woman, and I swear to you, I can BARELY understand ANY of the crap they fill those fucking bills with. And once they pretty it up, man, it STILL reads like fucking lawyer-speak. They do it on purpose, goddamnit, and it's fucking BULLSHIT. When I am Queen, all government and legal writings will be in plain English, with commonly accepted syntax and sentence structure.)
Where was I? Oh. Yeah.
Walk this way. Let me show you some of the band aids amendments the Democrats sponsored and watched die a painful, writhing death on the Senate floor, their unkindest cut of all coming from...
The Effluvious Three
Senator Nelson of Nebraska
Senator Johnson of South Dakota
Senator Carper of Delaware
Wait Listed:
Senator Biden of Delaware *
* Biden voted against the Democratic Party repeatedly, but he also is listed as "Not voting" on several of the votes. Not quite as consistent a water boy as Nelson, Johnson and Carper - but certainly enough of an asslick to merit making the probationary Wait List in The Effluvious Three.
Let's start off with a bang, shall we?
Amendment 42 - The Smoking Gun, in my opinion. Sponsored by Senator Schumer, it is described thusly: "To limit the exemption for asset protection trusts."
REJECTED
Golly, Senators - what does THAT mean? Well, I don't think the Senators who voted against this little gem are taking any QUESTIONS about it, so let me help:
Amendment 42 would have LIMITED the EXEMPTIONS for fucking ASSET PROTECTION TRUSTS.
Okay. That was snarky. Let me try again.
Translation of Amendment 42:
Schumer wanted to limit the FREE RIDE given in this bullshit legislation to people who are RICH ENOUGH to put their fucking ASSETS in a protected motherfucking TRUST. And not just "rich enough," man - the kind of rich you can only get when you RIPPED IT OFF from millions of consumers.
Put another way: There's this law, inspired by The Enron Debacle, which holds the officers of a corporation personally liable for the deceptive financial practices and ensuing disasters of their corporation.
But, luckily for these corporate thugs, the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005" provides exemptions for asset protection trusts.
Meaning: There are a handful of states in which you can STASH your ASSETS in a TRUST and render them UN-fucking-TOUCHABLE by bankruptcy laws. And you don't have to be a resident of those states, either. I can't remember which ones they are, except Utah. Utah is one of them, that much I know. Maybe Montana. Don't quote me.
Well, Schumer's Amendment 42, his valiant attempt to place at least SOME frigging limitations on those exemptions... was REJECTED.
Every Republican voted against it... and they were joined by their Democratic Geishas, Nelson of Nebraska, Johnson of South Dakota and Carper of Delaware.
Biden had the good sense to vote for this one, at least.
Let's look at another one, shall we? Then I'll stop. You get the picture. I've been bathing in this putrid sludge all day, no need for YOU to wade in. Who wants to buy new shoes before the spring sales?
Oh, god. It's so hard to choose. I can't. I'm going to list them all and give you my take on each case. Get your hip waders on; we're going in.
03-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 49
Durbin Amdt. No. 49; To protect employees and retirees from corporate practices that deprive them of their earnings and retirement savings when a business files for bankruptcy.
REJECTED
Well, that pretty much speaks for itself, doesn't it? The Democrats who voted against it? Well, ole Ben Nelson's in a class of Schmuck by himself on this one.
Several Ds are listed as "Not voting." I guess it's not quite urgent enough to skip washing your hands when you know losing is a foregone conclusion in every single motherfucking vote, because you can count on the scumsucking Republicans to vote against every single motherfucking Democratic-sponsored Amendment and Bill on - ahem - "principle." Man, I just CHOKED on that word, coming as it did in the same general vicinity as the word "Republicans."
03-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 24
Rockefeller Amdt. No. 24; To amend the wage priority provision and to amend the payment of insurance benefits to retirees.
REJECTED
I have no idea what this one means. But I'm sure since Rockefeller sponsored it and the Republicans rejected it, it must have been something far too decent and principled and SENSIBLE to allow to pass. The Democrats who voted against it: Biden and Carper and Nelson - oh, my.
Johnson got coy and voted for this one. What a tease. I wonder if the Republicans get together and dish about what a cocktease slag Johnson is. Those South Dakotan closeted Republicans; if they'd just come out, they probably wouldn't be so uptight... Imagine how hard it is, being a registered Democrat and not being able to tell anyone you're REALLY a conservative Republican prick.
03-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 38
Durbin Amdt. No. 38; To discourage predatory lending practices.
REJECTED
You know those credit card offers you get? The ones with the huge limits that make no sense in relation to your income? The ones with the 21% interest and the late fees and the renewal fees and the arbitrary increases in interest? They're called Predatory Lending Practices. Banks can't do it; ask the S &L's. Better yet - ask the fucking TAXPAYERS who bailed OUT the stinking bastards who ran those S & Ls into the ground, along with all the goddamned money.
Well, Senator Durbin thinks it'd be a good idea to CURB those lending practices, seeing as they lead to major debt, increased BANKRUPTCIES and eventually taxpayer bail-outs. But the Republicans's solution to the problem is to make it harder for the suckers to FILE for bankruptcy. Sound familiar? Don't teach them about birth control - make it harder for them to get abortions and medical treatment AFTER they get pregnant or catch a disease.
Democrats voting against Senator Durbin's prophylactic amendment? Biden, Carper, Johnson and Nelson! Ah, The Effluvious Three.
03-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 37
Nelson (FL) Amdt. No. 37; To exempt debtors from means testing if their financial problems were caused by identity theft.
REJECTED
Well, this seems pretty straight forward, pretty sensible? Why would we want to make life even harder for victims of identity theft? I don't know.
Ask The Effluvious Three, Senators Carper, Johnson and Nelson of Nebraska. Maybe they'll explain what it was about Senator Nelson of Florida's Amendment that compelled them to vote with the Republicans. AGAIN.
03-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 31
Dayton Amdt. No. 31.; To limit the amount of interest that can be charged on any extension of credit to 30 percent.
REJECTED
Now, this seems damned reasonable to me, but 19 Democrats voted against it. I can only assume it was either poorly written (and the 24 Democrats who DID vote for it were just voting as opposition on principle - and I can get behind THAT) - or hits too close to home for too many Senators beholden to someone who benefits from the death of this Amendment. I'll be charitable and go with the former.
Regardless of the rationale, this is sickening. I read one of the Nay voters's answers: Something to the effect that, if this Amendment passed, it would supersede any usury laws at the State level and... this is where I got confused. Was this putz actually suggesting that it wouldn't be Constitutional to federally regulate the amount of interest charged on extensions of credit? If anyone can explain this one to me, I'd appreciate it. Kerry voted against it, as did a number of other Senators I respect. However, most of the Senators I respect... voted for it.
02-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 32
Corzine Amdt. No. 32; To preserve existing bankruptcy protections for individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill or disabled family members.
REJECTED
Again - simple: we wouldn't want to strip away existing protections for people who are struggling just to stay alive, housed and fed while taking care of ill or disabled family members... WOULD WE???
Well, I guess 54 Republican Senators, 5 Democratic Senators and 1 "Independent" Senator WOULD want to strip away those protections. The Democrats: Baucus, Bingaman, Carper, Johnson and Nelson of Nebraska. Biden sat this one out. Maybe he was in the coatroom with Santorum, who also sat it out. I won't speculate as to what Biden might have been doing WITH Santorum... but I hope he washed carefully.
HERE COME A COUPLE BIG ONES:
02-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 29
Kennedy Amdt. No. 29; To provide protection for medical debt homeowners.
REJECTED
AND
02-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 28
Kennedy Amdt. No. 28.; To exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious medical problems from means testing.
REJECTED
Both are Kennedy sponsored, and it's just too much fun for those fascist fuckwads to pass up rejecting his amendments - even when those amendments call for protection of people whose MEDICAL debts are the reason they're filing for bankruptcy. Fuck the sick people - we've got KENNEDY BAITING to do.
Here comes the vote. How's it going to go down? Well, Biden stays out in the coatroom with Santorum doing god knows what.
Democrats voting against Amendment 29: Bingaman, Carper, Johnson and Nelson of Nebraska.
Biden emerges from the coatroom to vote on 28...
Democrats voting against Amendment 28: Biden, Carper, Johnson and Nelson - The Effluvious Three, together again, and wanna-be Biden edges ever-closer to full membership.
Santorum stays in the coatroom - jealous, no doubt, of the close relationship shared by the Effluvious Ones.
02-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 15
Akaka Amdt. No. 15; To require enhanced disclosure to consumers regarding the consequences of making only minimum required payments in the repayment of credit card debt, and for other purposes.
REJECTED
You wouldn't want the credit card companies to have to give people fair warning about what will happen if they only pay the minimum required payments, would you?
I know Baucus, Biden, Carper, Johnson and Nelson of Nebraska wouldn't - I mean, maybe they would, but it's too important for them to suck up to the entire Republican majority in the Senate, Every. Single. One... who voted against warning Billie Jo if she only pays the minimum, she's going to end up paying fourteen times in interest what she initially CHARGED on her Providian Card...
HERE'S A HUGE ONE
02-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 17
Feingold Amdt. No. 17.; To provide a homestead floor for the elderly.
REJECTED
THIS IS A TRULY OUTRAGEOUS REJECTION. Let me explain this as succinctly as I can:
Each and every single Republican, along with Jim Jeffords, Biden, Carper and Nelson of Nebraska, just voted to REJECT a provision that would ensure that no elderly people in financial trouble enough to seek bankruptcy protection... WOULD LOSE THEIR FUCKING HOMES!
Feingold pleads for protection for the elderly to prevent them LOSING THEIR FUCKING HOMES -- and 59 motherfucking RICH WHITE SENATORS with guaranteed wealth in old age ahead of them tell him, "Fuck the old people."
Here's how the Feingold debate went down, in a nutshell:
"In States such as Florida and Texas, there is a homestead exemption with an unlimited dollar value, meaning that any money invested in a home cannot be obtained by creditors. I should note, of course, that this creates other problems, which I will address in a few minutes. But other States allow a very limited value homestead exemption. In many States, the amount of equity a homeowner can protect in bankruptcy has lagged far behind the dramatic rise in home values in recent years. For example, in the State of Ohio, the homestead exemption is only $5,000, and in the Presiding Officer's State of North Carolina, the homestead exemption is $10,000. In this day and age, those paltry exemptions will do no good. We obviously have a problem, and it is hitting our older friends and family members the hardest.
Think about it: In these low homestead exemption States, even indigent elderly homeowners who own a home free and clear worth only $30,000 or $40,000 cannot file for chapter 7 bankruptcy without losing their home.
And they may not be able to file a chapter 13 case because they cannot afford to pay creditors the value of their home equity that is not exempt, as required by that chapter. Many elderly homeowners live solely on Social Security benefits, often no more than $800 to $1,000 per month. This is enough to subsist in their paid-off homes, while still paying taxes, utilities and other basic living expenses. But if they lose their homes, they will not be able to rent a decent place to live. Effectively, this means these older homeowners have no bankruptcy relief available to them at all. We have to address this gross inequity before we pass this bill. My amendment would create a uniform federal floor for homestead exemptions of $75,000, applicable only to bankruptcy debtors over the age of 62, protecting the lower- and middle-class senior citizens who need it most.
I will give an example that illustrates why it is so important that we fix this problem and fix it now. Let me tell my colleagues about Mary Bobbit. Mary Bobbit is a 70-year-old widow who lives in North Carolina, where the homestead exemption is only $10,000. According to a local news story, she recently lost her husband to cancer, a battle that left her with more than $175,000 in unpaid medical bills. Her only remaining asset is the home that her family built themselves 26 years ago, a home that she paid off just last year. And now she is faced with a horrible dilemma, because if she files for bankruptcy in North Carolina, she will lose the home that she and her husband worked so hard to build and pay for."
After Feingold concluded his opening remarks, Orrin Hatch got up and defamed Feingold's amendment as an attempt to derail the entire bill AND an infringement on the States's Rights regarding Homestead Exemptions (claiming the bill would be derailed because this infringement suggested in Feingold's amendment would cause numerous Senators from said States to vote against the Bill. As if any of those 55 Republican automatons would EVER vote against a bill if they were told to vote FOR it.
Feingold's response to Hatch's bullshit:
"The Senator from Utah has said this bill affects States rights with regard to the homestead exemption. This bill does affect the rights of Florida and Texas to have an unlimited homestead exemption, as it should. The Federal Government has an interest here in making sure wealthy people cannot abuse the system. I support that goal of stopping fraud.
The Federal Government also has an interest in making sure our senior citizens have absolute minimum protection for their homes when they are forced into bankruptcy, particularly because of unanticipated health care costs..."
Nevertheless, another amendment bit the dust...
Moving on:
01-Mar
On the Amendment S.Amdt. 16
Durbin Amdt. No. 16, As Modified.; To protect service members and veterans from means testing in bankruptcy, to disallow certain claims by lenders charging usurious interest rates to servicemembers, and to allow servicemembers to exempt property based on the law of the State of their premilitary residence.
REJECTED
Yeah. You read that right. 58 Senators just voted to... NOT support the troops. In other words, every single Republican Senator was joined by Baucus, Biden, Byrd, Carper, Johnson and Nelson of Nebraska in a hearty chorus of "Fuck the troops and Fuck the Vets, we've got Corporate Mouths to Feed."
(Don't ask me why Byrd voted against Durbin's amendment. Maybe he was just pissed off. I'm too fucking tired to go searching for his remarks, if there are any.)
Well, folks - that's as much of this as I can bear to revisit at this time. You've just gotten a glimpse into the next 2 years (at least) of what will pass for Legislation in the Senate and the House.
OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!!
I am exhausted, approaching despair, apoplectic with rage.
This disgusting, reprehensible, execrable, putrescent, loathsome, immoral and outright criminal Legislation, WILL pass - you know it, I know it, we all fucking know it, there's not a damned thing we can do about it.
"Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005" - Orwell would be proud. Or appalled. I can't decide which.
It will pass without a filibuster, too. As empty but briefly satisfying a gesture that might be, we won't even get the bittersweet pang of seeing our Party bravely battling the Forces of Darkness on the Senate floor, taking their turns reading aloud from The DaVinci Code and The Screwtape Letters and even the Bible... Perhaps some really choice, juicy passages about caring for the poor and such... You know - some quaint ideas like that.
Why? Why can't we even have a filibuster, mommy? I'll tell you why, you little brats. Because at least three of the Effluvious Three will surely vote with the Republicans out of sheer fucking HABIT; and we know enough about the vile and sinister tactics of this Cabal from Hell to know they'll surely be able to sway a couple or three more Democrats into voting their way...
None of these soulless Termites of the Constitution would think twice about threatening a Senator with base closures to get a filibuster shut down. These bastards won't bat an eye when contemplating putting thousands of people out of work as retaliation against an uppity Democrat.
Now... Let's lighten up a bit, have a little morbid fun with this dark harbinger of the Decline of the American Empire...
I have been granted permission by someone styling himself DuctapeFatwa to reprint something he wrote in response to this travesty. Me, I tend toward rants; Duct, it appears, works best in satire. Forthwith...
What the Bankruptcy Ban Means to YOU!
If you should suffer a serious injury, or are diagnosed with a serious illness, or any illness or disorder requiring long-term medical treatment and/or costly prescription drugs, the Bankruptcy Ban empowers you to choose to forego medical treatment and allow the disease process to take its course in the comfort of your home, which, unless you are very wealthy, you will lose if you continue obtaining medical treatment. Who wouldn't prefer passing away in their own comfy bed to trying to get comfortable in an alley?
When your employer gives you the freedom to choose a new career from the array of jobs of the future, and you find that your new wage is less than your basic expenses, thanks to the Bankruptcy Ban, you will not have to choose between paying your mortgage or charging groceries on your credit card. You choose whether to abandon your home now, or later, and whether to begin your new housing-free lifestyle with a few extra pounds from the charged food, or work on new skills like locating dumpsters in your area that have not yet been locked to keep people like you out of them.
Even if you are a renter, the Bankruptcy Ban has not forgotten you! In fact, you are one of the reasons so many people worked so hard to make the Ban a reality!
You see, before the Ban, if you did not own a home, once your debts were discharged through bankruptcy, your income would go to pay rent, buy food, etc. But now, you can feel safe knowing that any income you should have will instead go directly to the credit card companies, leaving you free to enjoy the same housing-free lifestyle as a former homeowner!
Most of all, the Ban simplifies and streamlines what was once a difficult and confusing process, full of decisions and options and all the worry and stress that comes with them.
Now, it's simple. If your debts total $2000 a month, and your income is $1500, you don't have to worry about coming up with that $500 any more, or trying to keep your credit card charges down. There won't be any more credit card charges. You're bankrupt! That means you get to pay the credit card companies back, no matter if you lose your job AND your housing! Some companies will even let you set aside some of any income you might have for incidental expenses. It might not sound like much, but once you've been living under the bridge and washing up at the gas station before your job of the future at McDonald's for a few weeks, you'll be mighty glad to be able to buy some soap at the convenience store - with cash!
For the rest of your life, you will be an important asset of some of America's largest and most respected companies! No matter where you go or what happens to you, your credit card company will be there, watching, and taking such a personal interest in you that if you get so much as a check for ten dollars for mowing a lawn, they will know about it! That's right! Who ever thought that big companies would take the time for details like that.
You're somebody now! You're a bankrupt - or a bankrupt-to-be. Don't get impatient, big changes like the exciting ones happening in the US economy take some time, but don't worry, your turn will come!
Yes. That was fun, wasn't it? Glad we had that diversion before turning to the conclusion of this Journey into the Heart of Darkness...
So, that was the Outrage of the Day. In summary, the Outrage consisted of Three Outrageous Outrages:
1. Republicans summarily reject all Democratic amendments along party lines.
2. Senators Carper, Johnson and Nelson -- and sometimes WHY, why Biden, WHY? ... are fucking traitors to the Democratic Party and should be dismissed from the Caucus with prejudice. Lieberman gets a pass from me this week, since he voted like a good goddamned Democrat should, though he's still on double secret probation for apparently signing a LEASE to live up George W. Bush's ASS.
3. The Nay votes in and of themselves for at least 2/3 of these amendments... are indefensible and outrageous outrages. No protection for the homes of the elderly and the medically infirm - but by GOD, we made sure those exemptions for protected assets stayed FIRM, by gosh, by gum. Tally fucking ho, motherfuckers. No protection for employees' earnings, pensions and retirement savings when an employer takes refuge in bankruptcy - but by GOD, we're gonna protect those credit card companies from too many intrusive rules that demand they properly inform their consumers what kind of a fucking deal with the devil they've just made on that high-interest, high-limit, low-minimum-payment credit card, by GOSH, by GOLLY, by GUUUUUM
Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/4/9176/09929)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.