I think you're upset over nothing. This is from another thread where I posted the statistics on BK's this year, and they are on the rise. This bill did not hinder legitimate BK's. Just the abusers. 85% are still eligible for chapter 7. And, by the way, families aren't the only ones filing for BK's. Here is the current breakdown;
The Chapter 7 filings for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 was the highest since the new bankruptcy laws went into effect in October of 2005.
News Flash! August 16, 2007 — The bankruptcy statistics were released on the Internet today by the Administrative Office of the Courts. Chapter 7 bankruptcies continue its steady rise since the new bankruptcy laws went into effect in October of 2005.Chapter 7 quarterly filings have been as follows:
Quarter Ended: # of Chapter 7 filings
March 31, 2006 63,548
June 30, 2006 91,674
September 31, 2006 96,442
December 31, 2006 99,446
March 31, 2007 117,830
June 30, 2007 131,039
And who filed;
Average age: 38;
44% of filers are couples;
30% are women filing alone;
26% are men filing alone;
Slightly better educated than the general population;
Two out of three have lost a job;
Half have experienced a serious health problem;
Fewer than 9% have not suffered a job loss, medical event or divorce;
Highest bankruptcy rates: Tennessee, Utah, Georgia, Alabama.
And, here's a stupid part;A family earning $24,000 had an average of $36,000 in credit card and similar debt.
Now, you tell me, why should I feel sorry for someone who made the decision to take out that much credit, knowing they had NO VIABLE way to pay it back. That's what I mean when I say people don't live within their means. If you don't make enough money to pay your bills, and buy things, how the hell can you EVER pay a credit card bill??
Here is the new criteria for filing;Means test for Chapter 7
Although the intent of the law was to make it more difficult for individuals to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 7, under which most of their debts are forgiven (or discharged) and to force individuals to file under Chapter 13 under which part of all of the debts are repaid under a plan, it has, in practice, not substantially made a large effect. Approximately 85% of debtors are not subject to its "means test" and a large percentage of the rest are able to "pass" the means test.(meaning, it doesn't affect that many people)
Under the old law, filers had a presumption of eligibility to file under Chapter 7, with the final determination made by bankruptcy judges, who evaluated the specific nature of each bankruptcy. In lieu of this judicial discretion, the new law substitutes a means test to determine whether filers have enough income to pay some portion of their debts, and thus file under Chapter 13.
The means test applies to filers whose gross income (based on the six month period prior to filing), is above the median income in their state (ranging from $72,451 in Massachusetts to $42,290 in West Virginia, as of 2005). Individuals whose incomes are below the median automatically qualify for Chapter 7. Filers whose incomes are above the median must then calculate their Disposable Monthly Income (DMI) to determine whether they are able to make payments on their debts sufficient to qualify them for Chapter 13. The DMI is determined by subtracting priority debt payments, secured debt payments, Internal Revenue Service determined expense allowances, taxes and certain other expenses from a filer’s monthly income. If the DMI is less than $100 per month, they are permitted to file under Chapter 7. If the DMI is above $100, they must file under Chapter 13.
This formula effectively rewards filers with assets that are heavily mortgaged and debtors with larger amounts of unsecured debt. Since alimony and child support payments are "priority debts" it also has the effect of making it easier for people who owe back domestic support obligations (such as "deadbeat dads") to file under Chapter 7 than other debtors (but the child support is not dischargeable).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Preventio... And here is the reason Joe voted for it;
Floor Statement: Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, several years ago, when we were considering this legislation, I spoke here on the Senate floor about some important provisions that I think have been overlooked in our discussions. In my remarks today I will repeat what I said back then, in March of 2001.
We have heard a lot in recent days about how this bill lacks compassion--specifically, that it will hurt women and children who depend on alimony and child support.
Critics claim that by making sure that more money is paid back to other creditors, this bill will make it harder for women and children to get what is coming to them.
I am particularly proud of my record of protecting women and children during my career in the Senate. That record includes the Violence Against Women Act to protect women threatened by domestic violence.
I am here again today to show that, contrary to a lot of the rhetoric that has been tossed around, this bill actually improves the situation of women and children who depend on child support. It specifically targets the problems they face under the current bankruptcy system into a virtual extension of the current national family support collection system.
There may be other aspects of this legislation that we can debate: the balance between creditors and debtors, between different kinds of creditors, or between different kinds of debtors. But on the question of child support and alimony, there should be no dispute.
Because this bill strengthens the collection of alimony. Period. http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=234426 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
