House Passes Repubican Sponsored, Immoral Bankruptcy Bill

[Nbadan]

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - In a major victory for the credit industry, the House of Representatives on Thursday voted 302-126 to pass legislation that will make it tougher for consumers to avoid repaying debt by filing for bankruptcy. The bill, which cleared the Senate last month, now goes to the White House, where President Bush has said he's eager to sign it. The bill institutes a means test for bankruptcy filers based largely on median state incomes.

Just in case you are wondering who's back the White House is really watching. 73 Democratic House members joined every single fucken Republican member in the House to protect preditory Credit card companies from our troops in Iraq who made the financial mistake of joining the National Guard and Reserves, and from Americans who have become so sick or suddenly struck by tragic illnesses that they can no longer afford to pay their bills.

No way around it, this is a immoral bill brought to all of us by the party that labels itself as the party of morality.

:rolleyes

[desflood]

So now it's immoral to insist upon people paying off their debts.

[mookie2001]

in the future cashless society, when our citizenship and security clearances on our future national ID card, are based greatly on our credit score.
we will have to work solely to pay our debts to, and work for, our individual creditors

[bigzak25]

rom Americans who have become so sick or suddenly struck by tragic illnesses that they can no longer afford to pay their bills.



these are the only people i am worried about. we should help those that cannot help themselves. and i agree dan, maybe there should be a deferment for our troops too.

but there shouldn't be a get out of jail free card for those others that are fiscally irresponsible. i have no sympathy for credit card companies getting rich off interest and i know claiming bankruptcy is not without it's penalties, but if you spend on credit, you should be held accountable.

[Nbadan]

So now it's immoral to insist upon people paying off their debts.

Your right, fuck em. So what if they were stupid enough to take a pay cut to go fight for 'freeedom' and 'liberty' in Iraq. They're idiotic mistake.

Let's kick Grandma and Grandpa out of their house and sell the bitch if they can't pay for their prescription medicine and medical care. All's fair in capitalism, right?

[The Ressurrected One]

Except for my mortgage, I have no debt. I'm not sure I understand the problem?

[Nbadan]

Except for my mortgage, I have no debt. I'm not sure I understand the problem?

Leave it to a Republican to have no sympathy for those less fortunate than himself...

This dated article from Daily Kos explains the immorality of the bankruptcy 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)

[desflood]

Your right, fuck em. So what if they were stupid enough to take a pay cut to go fight for 'freeedom' and 'liberty' in Iraq. They're idiotic mistake.

Let's kick Grandma and Grandpa out of their house and sell the bitch if they can't pay for their prescription medicine and medical care. All's fair in capitalism, right?
Grandma and Grandpa are not usually the ones filing for bankruptcy, and I believe you know that. As for the Guard and Reserves... it's been my experience that there are two kinds of spenders in the military, any branch. Those who purposely keep their debt very low (to avoid such a situation) and those who ring up huge debt and say, "F*ck it, we can always file for bankruptcy later." Thankfully, most belong to the former category.

[The Ressurrected One]

Leave it to a Republican to have no sympathy for those less fortunate than himself...
What's fortune have to do with it? It's called not spending beyond your means; saving for purchases; doing without; frugality.

As an example, My television is 30 years old; My DVD player was a throw away from someone that apparently likes ringing up debt to have the latest and greatest; my children play outside and don't have video games - we play board games. Obviously, I have a computer, but, I saved for it and paid cash.

I'm not going to tell what I make per year but, it's less than fifty grand and I have a family of 6 with a stay at home mom.

This dated article from Daily Kos explains the immorality of the bankruptcy bill...
Kos is an idiot.

[2centsworth]

The problem is Republicans legislating business. Aren't Republicans in favor of deregulating business? I guess not when it favors big business over vulnerable consumers. Republicans are on the wrong side on this one. Too bad liberals are crazy and no one takes them seriously anymore, otherwise they could counter balance poor decisions by Republicans. I guess liberals are too busy cracking down on Christians.

[SpursWoman]

It's making it more difficult to file bankruptcy, not doing away with it period. Serious illness or loss of job is in no way, shape or form the same circumstance as those who file just to dodge paying for what they took...which is basically stealing.

[ididnotnothat]

I think credit card companies need to stop giving everybody, like those right out of college, such large credit lines. That is a problem.

But I think you should have to pay your debts.

[Guru of Nothing]

I think credit card companies need to stop giving everybody, like those right out of college, such large credit lines. That is a problem.

But I think you should have to pay your debts.

Literally, I have received "pre-approved" solicitations in the mail for Herman Munster, which is the name I typically use when registering for newspaper website content.

The credit card companies are equally not responsible.

[Hook Dem]

Literally, I have received "pre-approved" solicitations in the mail for Herman Munster, which is the name I typically use when registering for newspaper website content.

The credit card companies are equally not responsible.
You are right GON!

[Nbadan]

Eh, evidently the responsibility to pay off your debts should only be for the poor and middle class, since Pensions and trusts can be sheltered by the wealthy. Every one of of us is one serious illness away from being indentured servants to credit companies, even if you live like AL Bundy and drive a 30 year old dodge.

[Guru of Nothing]

You are right GON!


Of course. :blah

I just want to add that bankruptcy is part of the creditor's business plan. They know and understand that their business model will incur x amount of bankruptcies, losing y amount of dollars. How sweet it is for them that they can turbocharge their bottom line with a little help from our elected officials.

[Nbadan]

It's making it more difficult to file bankruptcy, not doing away with it period. Serious illness or loss of job is in no way, shape or form the same circumstance as those who file just to dodge paying for what they took...which is basically stealing.

SW, what this bill effectively does is take control of who is eligible for Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy away from bankruptcy judges, who are in the best position to judge the level of a persons indebtedness, and leaves it completely to the discretion of the credit companies. You want a sneek at our future, just look over at Mexico, where the very wealthy own all the assets and everyone else is for all purposes a indentured slave.

[The Ressurrected One]

Of course. :blah

I just want to add that bankruptcy is part of the creditor's business plan. They know and understand that their business model will incur x amount of bankruptcies, losing y amount of dollars. How sweet it is for them that they can turbocharge their bottom line with a little help from our elected officials.
And, if this law causes their losses to fall dramatically, the lenders will shift the savings to competitive pricing and marketing. It's called free market capitalism. We all win...except the deadbeats and sloths, of course.

[Nbadan]

And, if this law causes their losses to fall dramatically, the lenders will shift the savings to competitive pricing and marketing. It's called free market capitalism. We all win...except the deadbeats and sloths, of course.

Just like tort reform lowered our insurance costs like they promised, right? Don't hold your breathe that you'll ever see any savings.

[The Ressurrected One]

Just like tort reform lowered our insurance costs like they promised, right? Don't hold your breathe that you'll ever see any savings.
If it is as has been said, that bankruptcy is part of their business model, it's only a matter of time that market forces will demand that any savings (due to legislative protection) be transfered to competing with others for consumer share.

Simple economics. It will only take one lender lowering interest rates for all to follow...

[Nbadan]

Simple economics. It will only take one lender lowering interest rates for all to follow...

How are they gonna squeeze their margins by dropping rates with continued intrest rate increases by the fed in the future?

[Nbadan]

i am calling my attorney first thing in the morning.....the clock is ticking.

Expect there to be a rash of bankruptcy filings before this immoral bill becomes law. Even some who are only a little in debt will feel pressured to file now.

[The Ressurrected One]

How are they gonna squeeze their margins by dropping rates with continued intrest rate increases by the fed in the future?
I guess you haven't ever looked at the difference between the fed rate and your typical VISA card APR...I think there's room for them to drop the rates a bit -- especially if all the deadbeats are culled a bit.

[The Ressurrected One]

Expect there to be a rash of bankruptcy filings before this immoral bill becomes law. Even some who are only a little in debt will feel pressured to file now.
You keep using the word "immoral," since when is neglecting your obligations virtuous?

[Nbadan]

I guess you haven't ever looked at the difference between the fed rate and your typical VISA card APR...I think there's room for them to drop the rates a bit -- especially if all the deadbeats are culled a bit.

Your on hallucinogenics if you think that credit card companies are going to lower their rates just because they can now legally take your house, tap your paycheck, take all your assets including your car, and force you to work for them until they see fit. They are more likely to increase rates.

[Nbadan]

The worst part is, is when the housing collapse comes, many people are going to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. In many cases, owing tens of thousands more than their homes will be worth, unable to escape their homes or debts their MacMansions will become shameful mausoleums.

[The Ressurrected One]

Your on hallucinogenics if you think that credit card companies are going to lower their rates just because they can now legally take your house, tap your paycheck, take all your assets including your car, and force you to work for them until they see fit. They are more likely to increase rates.
They will for the customers they want. They'll have the freedom to be picky again and not have to give everyone credit on the assumption that a certain percentage will skip out anyway.

Besides, do you really think they want the houses, cars, and whatnot from the type of people that skip out on debt? I'm betting most of those assets aren't worth having and are more trouble to repossess than they are to just leave alone. On the other hand, you'd probably be right about garnishing wages...but, after all, it is their money you borrowed and didn't pay back.

I mean this in the kindest regard but, you're economically retarded.

[The Ressurrected One]

The worst part is, is when the housing collapse comes, many people are going to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. In many cases, owing tens of thousands more than their homes will be worth, unable to escape their homes or debts their MacMansions will become shameful mausoleums.
I get the sense you sit around with a cocked pistol in your hand to commit suicide when the inevitable happens...are you always this doomy and gloomy?

[Nbadan]

I get the sense you sit around with a cocked pistol in your hand to commit suicide when the inevitable happens...are you always this doomy and gloomy?

:rolleyes

How Machiavellian your concern about my well being is, I’m sure.

[The Ressurrected One]

:rolleyes

How Machiavellian your concern about my well being is, I’m sure.
Well, do you have a positive outlook on anything?

I mean, how economically sound is it for Big Corporation, Inc. and Mr. Filthy Rich to screw all the downtrodden out of their money? Supply and Demand is what drives this country...if you remove demand by breaking the masses, no one is going to need your supply and you join the soup line.

I don't see a problem with forcing some fiscal responsibility on Mr. Two-Car Garage on 27,000 a year with his plasma T.V., cell phone, X Box, etc....

[2centsworth]

And, if this law causes their losses to fall dramatically, the lenders will shift the savings to competitive pricing and marketing. It's called free market capitalism. We all win...except the deadbeats and sloths, of course.
how is government intervention free market capitalism?

[Nbadan]

I mean, how economically sound is it for Big Corporation, Inc. and Mr. Filthy Rich to screw all the downtrodden out of their money? Supply and Demand is what drives this country...if you remove demand by breaking the masses, no one is going to need your supply and you join the soup line.

I don't see a problem with forcing some fiscal responsibility on Mr. Two-Car Garage on 27,000 a year with his plasma T.V., cell phone, X Box, etc....

Oh, the demand will still be there for the wealthy to make their money, only that demand will now be from India, China, and Indonesia.

[Nbadan]

Well, do you have a positive outlook on anything?

Yes, if you’re still reading this I urge you too take a few steps to protect yourselves and your families, but remember that opinions are worth what you pay for them.

1. Live within your means, spend only what you need to spend, pay off as many of your debts as quickly as possible without causing a serious financial hardship on your family.

2. If you’re planning to buy a < 150K house soon, or move up to yet a bigger house - wait. As many as 1/4 of the houses currently being sold in San Antonio and 1/3 of the homes being sold nationally, driving this housing bubble, are not first-owner homes, in other words, they are speculation by landlords. Many of these landlords are making less in rent than their monthly mortgages are worth and looking at their contributions into the homes as an investment to be cashed in when the home sells for a higher price. Trouble is, SA isn't a very wealthy city, and under Republican leadership there has been very little increase in real income - that's money that you and I take home.

So how is it that despite the fact that we are collectively making about the same as we were 5 years ago, and yet even people with questionable credit can afford to spend more on cars, large-screen TV, and also homes? Well, their homes which were once worth 75K are now worth 120k, and many owners do the sensible thing and cash out at these inflated values and buy homes worth $150k or 200k, and the Lexus, and the big screen TV's...and so on and so on and so on...

Trouble is, this unreal inflation in home prices gives people caught in this trap, a feeling of false wealth and infallibility. It is estimated that despite the obvious conclusion that interest rates have no-where to go but up, up to 30% of landlords invest in homes with little or no money down and with either adjustable rate mortgages, or even worse, interest-only loans. Even a 2% rise in these rates could force monthly mortgages rise dramatically, effectively forcing landlords to either dump the property at a huge loss if they have the equity, or surrender it to the mortgage companies which will sooner or later be forced to follow suit to unload the property.

3. Learn a valuable skill that can be bartered. If you know a lot about computers, learn to completely fix them. If you know a lot about cars, brush up on your skills. If you're good at home repair, electrical work, plumbing, or handy work, expand your knowledge.

4. Grow a garden. If worse comes to worse, at least you'll have a few potatoes and tomatoes to live on, plus you'll get the added tranquility of gardening as a side benefit.

Finally, If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, and you will be none the worse for taking my advice, but I don’t think I’m wrong.

[The Ressurrected One]

Okay, I've read the bill and some commentary on the subject...

Somewhere between 3 and 20 percent of the people who file for chapter 7 bankruptcy (total liquidation) each year would not be able to do so under this legislation. They would not pass the means test...which is those people who make above the state's median income and can pay $6,000 over five years (a hundred bucks a month) would be moved to Chapter 13 bankruptcy, or a repayment plan. To give you an idea, the median income for a four-person family in the state of Georgia is $62,294 a year. The rest of everybody else would be unaffected.

Just imagine this. If you make above the median income this horrible bill might actually require you to pay a few bucks a month to pay back the credit card companies you took money from. You have the goodies .. the big-screen televisions, the clothes, the jewelry, the cars .... the bling ... and now you want to stick the credit card company with the bill. Well aren't you special. The credit card companies are evil because they want you to abide by the terms of your contract with them, and you are pure because you want to bail out. Yeah ... makes sense to me.

There are about 1.6 million bankruptcies in this country a year. That's more bankruptcies per capita than during the Great Depression. Perhaps if people would save a little money instead of leveraging themselves up to their eyeballs just to amass as many toys as possible, there wouldn't be so many bankruptcies. But don't worry: the legislation doesn't take effect until 180 days after George Bush signs it.

It doesn't appear your dog food-eating grandmother would be affected.

[Clandestino]

basically don't run up credit card debt like a mofo and you will be alright.. like resurrected one says, "live within your means"

[spurster]

The issue is complicated except that asset protection trusts are still protected. This allows the wealthy to shelter any amount from bankruptcy. This bill provides a gaping loophole for the wealthy and doesn't impose any responsibility on creditors who promise quick money.

Should people be financially responsible? Yes, but make it for everybody.

[The Ressurrected One]

The issue is complicated except that asset protection trusts are still protected. This allows the wealthy to shelter any amount from bankruptcy. This bill provides a gaping loophole for the wealthy and doesn't impose any responsibility on creditors who promise quick money.
Always read the fine print...

Should people be financially responsible? Yes, but make it for everybody.
So, you advocate dropping the low income threshhold and push everyone to Chapter 13?

[spurster]

Bankruptcy is a recognition that the situation is hopeless, and that the best action for the debtors and creditors both is for the creditors to take their losses and the debtor to start over. This bill is about the fine line between hopeless situations and eventually it will all be paid (or some larger portion will be repaid). Not having gone through it and not having been employed anywhere close to the financial field, I don't know where that line is.

That this bill lets creditors off the hook for promoting large debts and the wealthy for their asset protection plans, that I understand.

[Nbadan]

the median income for a four-person family in the state of Georgia is $62,294 a year

Actually, $62,294 is a drop in median household incomes since 2002. Consider that the avg. national 4-person household income in 2002 was $62,732. Of course, these figures vary from state to state. A person making $60K+ could live quiet comfortably in SA where the average household income is closer to $39k. This means that people living in economically depressed area like SA will now be forced to pass a much tougher means test in order to qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy than people in other parts of the country. It's all a part of screwing the poor while allowing the rich to shelter their wealth from creditors with trusts and pensions.

[The Ressurrected One]

Actually, $62,294 is a drop in median household incomes since 2002. Consider that the avg. national 4-person household income in 2002 was $62,732. Of course, these figures vary from state to state. A person making $60K+ could live quiet comfortably in SA where the average household income is closer to $39k. This means that people living in economically depressed area like SA will now be forced to pass a much tougher means test in order to qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy than people in other parts of the country. It's all a part of screwing the poor while allowing the rich to shelter their wealth from creditors with trusts and pensions.
It was the example given in my resource material...I never suggested it represented the national median income.

[Nbadan]

It was the example given in my resource material...I never suggested it represented the national median income.

I understand, and I'm not against people having to accept some responsibility for the debts they have incurred. However, I prefer to leave that decision in the hands of a bankruptcy Judge rather than tie their hands with legislation written by the industry benifiting from it the most, all with no amendments by legislators which are supposed to be looking after the interests of its constituents.

[2centsworth]

asset protection trusts

WTF? No such thing except some illegal crap some creepy lawyer is selling.

[The Ressurrected One]

WTF? No such thing except some illegal crap some creepy lawyer is selling.
I'm not a financial expert but, it's my understanding the only way to avoid paying taxes on income is to put it away in a tax deferred account or someplace where you're not using it.

Once you "unshelter" it, bammo -- it's taxed and exposed for judgement. Or, once you're dead...double bammo (well hopefully not anymore) -- it's death taxed and exposed for judgement. Sheltered money is stagnant money.

All other ways are, as 2cents said, illegal.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I think credit card companies need to stop giving everybody, like those right out of college, such large credit lines. That is a problem.

But I think you should have to pay your debts.


exactly and exactly!!

They make paying off your debts such a big deal now, they hunt you down now, they make you seem like the bad guy....


But what party is it that spends millions on sending out application cards to every fucking half wit teenager in america, the second they are of age? The credit card companies seek you out, present all this promise of free money to young kids who dont give a fuck, and the government makes sure those kids stay in the dregs of society their entire life for mistakes they make when they're kids.

think about it.

19 years old --- officially too young to consume a liquid substance containing alcohol, not mature and responsible enough
BUT
more than responsible enough to fill out a form to receive a card that gives you credit for thousands of dollars, regardless if you have a job or not, regardless of your background, they jsut give it to you and know you're such a responsible teenager that you'll do well

yeah right, the entire concept is bull shit

government is so fucking corrupt its insane

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

since Pensions and trusts can be sheltered by the wealthy.

There was a nice article in USA Today yesterday about one of those shelters getting nailed by the IRS. Nice try.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2005/images/bankruptcy1.jpg

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Reading through it again, this cracks me up.

Moral of the story: live within your means.

[Clandestino]

exactly and exactly!!

They make paying off your debts such a big deal now, they hunt you down now, they make you seem like the bad guy....


But what party is it that spends millions on sending out application cards to every fucking half wit teenager in america, the second they are of age? The credit card companies seek you out, present all this promise of free money to young kids who dont give a fuck, and the government makes sure those kids stay in the dregs of society their entire life for mistakes they make when they're kids.

think about it.

19 years old --- officially too young to consume a liquid substance containing alcohol, not mature and responsible enough
BUT
more than responsible enough to fill out a form to receive a card that gives you credit for thousands of dollars, regardless if you have a job or not, regardless of your background, they jsut give it to you and know you're such a responsible teenager that you'll do well

yeah right, the entire concept is bull shit

government is so fucking corrupt its insane

17 is young enough to die for your country... you should be able to have a credit card by then...

there is nothing wrong with credit card companies..no one is forced to get one.. my 50+ year old mother has never had one her entire life. she raised three kids alone on a teacher's salary...

[desflood]

Yeah, my parents just got their first, at the ages of 52 and 54.

[Nbadan]

There was a nice article in USA Today yesterday about one of those shelters getting nailed by the IRS. Nice try.

There are states where cheats like Ken Lay can plant their trusts and they can't be tapped for anything. One state I know is Utah and another is Montana, I think...