The bankruptcy bill showed the divide in the party...the people and the money.

[madfloridian]

There is a lot of defense going on here today of the bankruptcy bill. When people vote for things that are that wrong-headed, we do need to speak out.

I was just called a "bleeding heart" in one thread because I posted details about the bill. Maybe it is time to remember some things.

I want to say that the "bleeding heart" label is one that my Republican family used for years....but one they are backing away from now that they see the harm that has been done to ordinary people.

There is nothing wrong with being a "bleeding heart", and I am proud to wear that label.

CNN had a segment in March of this year about the bankruptcy bill. It was alarming.

CNN talked about the bankruptcy bill today. Dems are worried.

They interviewed someone named Scurlock who made a film called Maxxed Out.

SCURLOCK: Well, you know, if you the numbers, and you look at why people declare bankruptcy and you look at why people are in debt, the only real solution is to never go to the hospital, never get divorced and never lose your job, which I don't I think is that realistic for most people -- and probably never go to college.

Other than that, I think you just have to be very, very wary. You know, a lot of these people get the credit card offers and take them at face value. But if they're getting a credit card offer, it's not because they're responsible or because they're a platinum person or a gold person. You know, it's because they could make money for the credit card company.

WASTLER: James, bang on Congress a little bit. There was a big hearing... SCURLOCK: OK.

WASTLER: ... this week and everything. And they had all the big boy credit card companies come. Oh yes, we promise, we're going to be more transparent with our customers, which is a bunch of malarkey, quite frankly. I know you've been following it carefully, but all of these banks have big lobbying organizations that help get their point of view across in Washington. Is there any realistic chance that we'll get some sort of change out of D.C.?

SCURLOCK: Well, I think the congressmen are still sort of stinging from this bait and switch with bankruptcy reform where they were told that if they passed the bill, about a year-and-a-half ago, that all Americans would get this dividend in the form of lower interest rates. I think they said it was $500 or $600 we were all paying because people were gaming in the bankruptcy system. And nobody has gotten a dividend check yet and I don't think interest rates have come down. So and I think Congress is very angry about this. And you have new -- the Democrats in charge of the committees and oversight are they are really taking these guys to task.

Well, I don't know how much they took the companies to task. We only have two credit cards, seldom use them. However....we got mail recently from both companies about changes in terms of use. I had a nagging feeling I should read them as they were worded differently. I really have tried. But when it came to the actual terms, they were in such fine print I needed a magnifying glass.

Even that did not help...still don't understand.

The Blue Dogs and the New Democrat Coalition went to bat for the corporations on this issue. They were so impatient with Denny Hastert's slowness in bringing it up for a vote that both groups wrote him letters.

Here are copies of those letters:

The New Dems:
(Most of the letter, now no longer available at TNR is still here at MyDD from 2005)
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/3/9/174642/9712

The Blue Dogs
http://www.abiworld.org/pdfs/bluedog.pdf

Here is more about that bill.

Blue Dogs and New Dems pushed for the bankruptcy bill.

Did you know that Nancy Pelosi stood up for the "liberals" in the party and stood up to the Blue Dogs and New Dems against the Bankruptcy Bill? Did you know it was one of the things that caused the worst divide between Pelosi and Hoyer.

...."Did you know that David Sirota got called on the carpet at Center for the American Progress for pointing out that many of the conservatives Democrats voting for the bill had taken a lot of money from credit cards company. Those centrist Demcrats ran crying to John Podesta who is head of that group to tattletale on Sirota."

And more on the topic called

The Whining Moderates

Look, there was nothing "moderate" or "centrist" about the bankruptcy bill. Nothing. It was a payoff to the credit card industry, and frankly, I don't see how siding with MBNA over working Americans has anything to do with the ideological spectrum. This was a giveaway to a special interest, plain and simple.

Pelosi is right, and the "moderates" are wrong -- there's nothing to apologize for. These guys didn't just vote with the GOP on a bill. They sent a letter urging Hastert to introduce and pass the legislation. When David Sirota called them on that travesty, the Whining Moderates ran and cried to John Podesta (who runs the Center for American Progress where Sirota is a fellow). Now, they're crying to Pelosi when she calls them on the bullshit.

More on the dangers that are in the bill...from my own notes, so feel free to correct.

There is a lack of exemptions for the ill, the disabled, the elderly who might have large bills from ill health....nothing to protect their homes and cars.

It does not exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious medical problems from means testing. It does not provide protection for medical debt homeowners. Homes and cars could be lost under this new plan if you have medical problems.

It does not preserve existing bankruptcy protections for
individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill or disabled family members.

There is no provision to insure elderly people in financial trouble who seek bankruptcy could keep their homes. Republicans voted down a provision for it, and 3 Democrats from states with big credit card industries joined them.

Making the minimum payment on a credit card can often cause you to go
further in debt with the credit card company. An amendment was voted down by all Republicans and a few Democrats that would have required this disclosure on the danger of minimum payments.

And after all is said and done, it boils down to the real battle going on now in the party.

The clash will be between the "governing class" and the "activist class."

If there's a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party, predicts Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network, a moderate advocacy group, it won't be the usual skirmish between the liberals and moderates of the professional political class in Washington but one between the Washington insiders on one side and the rank-and-file activists spread out across the country on the other. "What's changed over the past two years is that activist Democrats believe that Republicans are venal people," says Rosenberg. These activists "are going to be very intolerant of Democrats in Washington who cooperate with the Republicans. There's going to be tremendous pressure to stand up and fight and not roll over and play dead."

Rosenberg of the NDC said that in 2004. I guess he realizes now just how right he was.

The bankruptcy bill was a perfect example of the "divide" between the two groups of the party.

[Faygo Kid]

1. The bankruptcy bill was and is a travesty.

These credit predators seduce debtors with relentless solicitations and utter lack of meaningful disclosure, then impose fees to keep us in bondage forever, while their lobbyists successfully eliminate the long-accepted remedy of bankruptcy.

If we had universal health care, bankruptcy would be greatly reduced. That, as you note, is the killer. I am almost out of debt, and intend to stay that way once achieved, except for car and house payments, as necessary.

[Captain Hilts]

18. I agree. I'd like someone to ask Biden about its effects. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

34. I think people forget that Biden voted FOR that bill. Delaware is a big state for card companies.

He probably got alot of campaign money from them..

[Tejanocrat]

35. Biden didn't just vote for the bill; he was 1 of 4 Democrats who voted against MANY pro-consumer

amendments which would have made the bill less hateful. Here is some discussion on those votes with details: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Tejanocrat/18

[1corona4u]

37. LOL...

MD? Figures you have no idea what you're talking about....

[BrklynLiberal]

40. Thank you very much for kind and considerate correction.

[1corona4u]

53. He didn't get anything from them...

madfloridian, once again, I am going to post the facts of the BK bill, in an effort to stop the lies being perpetrated here. If other people want to know the facts, please read the whole post.

First of all, this bill has NOT inhibited legitimate people from filing for BK's. In fact, BK's are on the rise. If what YOU said was true, they'd be going down, not up. Here are the latest statistics;

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, 200663,548
June 30, 200691,674
September 31, 200696,442
December 31, 200699,446
March 31, 2007117,830<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
June 30, 2007131,039<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

And, here is 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??


Yes, there is a means test now, however, it doesn't seem to be inhibiting ANY BK;
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.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Preventio...




AND, if you all knew anything, at-all, about BK's, you'd know that most companies file chapter 11. None of them get off for free, which I have explained below.

And here are the 10 largest companies that filed since 1980;
TOT. ASSETS PRE-BANK. ($MIL)
Kmart1/22/2002$17,007.00
Federated Dept. Stores1/15/1990$7,913.00
Montgomery Ward Holding Corp.7/7/1997$4,879.00
Macy (R.H.) & Co. Inc.1/27/1992$4,812.00
Allied Stores Corp. 1/15/1990$3,502.00
Southland Corp.10/24/1990$3,439.00
Ames Department Stores4/25/1990$2,130.00
The Circle K Corp.5/15/1990$2,045.00
Carter Hawley Hale Stores2/11/1991$2,045.00
Ames Department Stores Inc.8/20/2001$1,975.29
Revco D.S. Inc.7/28/1988$1,844.00

All of these companies filed chapter 11. Meaning they REORGANIZE, and pay back debt. They do NOT get to write it all off.

World Com, the largest BK-ever, filed a chapter 11. Meaning they also REORGANIZED. Once a company files Chapter 11, ALL major financial decisions must be made by the bankruptcy court. Secured creditors are paid first, followed by unsecured creditors, and then, the company stockholders. In A Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission makes sure that the corporation is not withholding information. I see no way here for any company to get off scott free.


If you hate Joe Biden FINE. But stop the lies, and making it sound like he did a bad thing to people. He voted for this bill for ONE reason. That reason was clearly stated, in his address, on the Senate Floor, and is as follows;

March 10, 2005
Statement

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.



What is so wrong with that? NOTHING.

Now, let's address the credit card rates, again.

First of all, credit cards are totally voluntary. No one forces anyone to get a card. Secondly, your "rate" depends on a lot of factors. Your current income to debt ratio, your ability to pay, your credit history, the way you currently pay your credit cards, and how much you owe every other creditor, and how long you have owed them. If you're not happy with the "rates", then by all means, pay them off and close them, or, if qualified, transfer to a lower rate card company.
CREDIT CARDS ARE OPTIONAL. Use them or not. If you do use them, you are RESPONSIBLE for the debt.


And, how about this comment;

Hurricane Katrina bankruptcies
"Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee noted "If someone in Katrina is down and out, and has no possibility of being able to repay 40 percent or more of their debts, then the new bankruptcy law doesn't apply".
The Justice Department's US Trustee program has since said it would relax the strict Chapter 7 rules for disaster victims, including those affected by Hurricane Katrina. The Justice Department trustees oversee the administration of bankruptcy cases, and have discretion in ruling over bankruptcy filings. They also said the trustees would not challenge debtors who couldn't meet paperwork requirements because documents were destroyed by the hurricane, and that victims of Hurricane Katrina may skip the credit counseling requirement before filing."

The bottom line is this, you are getting your opinion, from someone else's opinion, I am getting MY information from FACTS that exist on the internet, if someone would choose to do the research and seek the truth. If you persist in this asinine attack even after I have shown you facts to clearly dispute your lies, then you need other professional help.

Every time this topic pops up again, I am going to post this. The lies and spin have to stop. BK's cost EACH one of us $400.00 a YEAR in increased cost. I'd think people would appreciate having that money BACK in their pockets, but maybe that's just me.

[Captain Hilts]

58. The Domino effect of being late paying one bill making it possible for ALL your cards to...

increase interest rates, etc. because of what you did with another company stinks.

MBNA, now Bank of America's profits have soared since the bill.

[1corona4u]

60. So....

Don't pay your bills late..put it on the desktop calendar like I do. Every morning, when I sit down at the computer to have my coffee, I see what I have to pay that day. Simple stuff really.

[Captain Hilts]

62. I do pay my bills on time. But I travel. So, if I pay my Mastercard bill four hours late...

why should another card be permitted to up their rate on me because of what happened on my Mastercard?

The card companies' profits have soared.

[1corona4u]

66. So....stop using them...

go with a pre-paid card. Or, use travelers checks. Honestly, ATM's are everywhere. Pay with that. Besides, this was not a problem that stems from the BK bill. It's been around for a long, long time. I remember it as far back as 1998.

[Captain Hilts]

69. Yeah, I want to carry around wads of cash when I travel. No, I don't think so. nt

[1corona4u]

72. Well...

do you have an ATM card? Most people do....

[1corona4u]

73. As I said....

that was in place long before the BK bill. It was in effect in the 90's.

[1corona4u]

51. There are no side effects;

madfloridian, once again, I am going to post the facts of the BK bill, in an effort to stop the lies being perpetrated here. If other people want to know the facts, please read the whole post.

First of all, this bill has NOT inhibited legitimate people from filing for BK's. In fact, BK's are on the rise. If what YOU said was true, they'd be going down, not up. Here are the latest statistics;

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, 200663,548
June 30, 200691,674
September 31, 200696,442
December 31, 200699,446
March 31, 2007117,830<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
June 30, 2007131,039<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

And, here is 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??


Yes, there is a means test now, however, it doesn't seem to be inhibiting ANY BK;
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.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Preventio...




AND, if you all knew anything, at-all, about BK's, you'd know that most companies file chapter 11. None of them get off for free, which I have explained below.

And here are the 10 largest companies that filed since 1980;
TOT. ASSETS PRE-BANK. ($MIL)
Kmart1/22/2002$17,007.00
Federated Dept. Stores1/15/1990$7,913.00
Montgomery Ward Holding Corp.7/7/1997$4,879.00
Macy (R.H.) & Co. Inc.1/27/1992$4,812.00
Allied Stores Corp. 1/15/1990$3,502.00
Southland Corp.10/24/1990$3,439.00
Ames Department Stores4/25/1990$2,130.00
The Circle K Corp.5/15/1990$2,045.00
Carter Hawley Hale Stores2/11/1991$2,045.00
Ames Department Stores Inc.8/20/2001$1,975.29
Revco D.S. Inc.7/28/1988$1,844.00

All of these companies filed chapter 11. Meaning they REORGANIZE, and pay back debt. They do NOT get to write it all off.

World Com, the largest BK-ever, filed a chapter 11. Meaning they also REORGANIZED. Once a company files Chapter 11, ALL major financial decisions must be made by the bankruptcy court. Secured creditors are paid first, followed by unsecured creditors, and then, the company stockholders. In A Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission makes sure that the corporation is not withholding information. I see no way here for any company to get off scott free.


If you hate Joe Biden FINE. But stop the lies, and making it sound like he did a bad thing to people. He voted for this bill for ONE reason. That reason was clearly stated, in his address, on the Senate Floor, and is as follows;

March 10, 2005
Statement

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.



What is so wrong with that? NOTHING.

Now, let's address the credit card rates, again.

First of all, credit cards are totally voluntary. No one forces anyone to get a card. Secondly, your "rate" depends on a lot of factors. Your current income to debt ratio, your ability to pay, your credit history, the way you currently pay your credit cards, and how much you owe every other creditor, and how long you have owed them. If you're not happy with the "rates", then by all means, pay them off and close them, or, if qualified, transfer to a lower rate card company.
CREDIT CARDS ARE OPTIONAL. Use them or not. If you do use them, you are RESPONSIBLE for the debt.


And, how about this comment;

Hurricane Katrina bankruptcies
"Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee noted "If someone in Katrina is down and out, and has no possibility of being able to repay 40 percent or more of their debts, then the new bankruptcy law doesn't apply".
The Justice Department's US Trustee program has since said it would relax the strict Chapter 7 rules for disaster victims, including those affected by Hurricane Katrina. The Justice Department trustees oversee the administration of bankruptcy cases, and have discretion in ruling over bankruptcy filings. They also said the trustees would not challenge debtors who couldn't meet paperwork requirements because documents were destroyed by the hurricane, and that victims of Hurricane Katrina may skip the credit counseling requirement before filing."

The bottom line is this, you are getting your opinion, from someone else's opinion, I am getting MY information from FACTS that exist on the internet, if someone would choose to do the research and seek the truth. If you persist in this asinine attack even after I have shown you facts to clearly dispute your lies, then you need other professional help.

Every time this topic pops up again, I am going to post this. The lies and spin have to stop. BK's cost EACH one of us $400.00 a YEAR in increased cost. I'd think people would appreciate having that money BACK in their pockets, but maybe that's just me.

[lapfog_1]

2. Whenever anyone calls me a "bleeding heart liberal"

I respond "At least I still have a heart"

[gateley]

13. EXCELLENT response! nt

[slipslidingaway]

3. Thanks for putting this together K&R n/t

[madfloridian]

10. You are welcome. For some reason it is being greatly defended today.

I wouldn't have bothered but they were making it sound like so many people just go around declaring bankruptcy for the fun of it.

[slipslidingaway]

12. It used to be that you had to work hard to establish credit, now

my daughter was able to get a credit card because she had a debit card??? She was/is a full time student with no income, yet she has access to tens of thousands of dollars worth of credit.

People that make the loans have to be responsible as well :think:

[1corona4u]

38. I was being defended...

because it's hogwash, and has had ZERO affect of the number of people who are able to file for BK. I posted the stats, but you, and the other Biden bashers chose to ignore them. This did not in any way change anything for any legitimate case for filing a BK. Period.

[1corona4u]

52. I can't imagine why...

madfloridian, once again, I am going to post the facts of the BK bill, in an effort to stop the lies being perpetrated here. If other people want to know the facts, please read the whole post.

First of all, this bill has NOT inhibited legitimate people from filing for BK's. In fact, BK's are on the rise. If what YOU said was true, they'd be going down, not up. Here are the latest statistics;

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, 200663,548
June 30, 200691,674
September 31, 200696,442
December 31, 200699,446
March 31, 2007117,830<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
June 30, 2007131,039<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

And, here is 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??


Yes, there is a means test now, however, it doesn't seem to be inhibiting ANY BK;
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.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Preventio...




AND, if you all knew anything, at-all, about BK's, you'd know that most companies file chapter 11. None of them get off for free, which I have explained below.

And here are the 10 largest companies that filed since 1980;
TOT. ASSETS PRE-BANK. ($MIL)
Kmart1/22/2002$17,007.00
Federated Dept. Stores1/15/1990$7,913.00
Montgomery Ward Holding Corp.7/7/1997$4,879.00
Macy (R.H.) & Co. Inc.1/27/1992$4,812.00
Allied Stores Corp. 1/15/1990$3,502.00
Southland Corp.10/24/1990$3,439.00
Ames Department Stores4/25/1990$2,130.00
The Circle K Corp.5/15/1990$2,045.00
Carter Hawley Hale Stores2/11/1991$2,045.00
Ames Department Stores Inc.8/20/2001$1,975.29
Revco D.S. Inc.7/28/1988$1,844.00

All of these companies filed chapter 11. Meaning they REORGANIZE, and pay back debt. They do NOT get to write it all off.

World Com, the largest BK-ever, filed a chapter 11. Meaning they also REORGANIZED. Once a company files Chapter 11, ALL major financial decisions must be made by the bankruptcy court. Secured creditors are paid first, followed by unsecured creditors, and then, the company stockholders. In A Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission makes sure that the corporation is not withholding information. I see no way here for any company to get off scott free.


If you hate Joe Biden FINE. But stop the lies, and making it sound like he did a bad thing to people. He voted for this bill for ONE reason. That reason was clearly stated, in his address, on the Senate Floor, and is as follows;

March 10, 2005
Statement

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.



What is so wrong with that? NOTHING.

Now, let's address the credit card rates, again.

First of all, credit cards are totally voluntary. No one forces anyone to get a card. Secondly, your "rate" depends on a lot of factors. Your current income to debt ratio, your ability to pay, your credit history, the way you currently pay your credit cards, and how much you owe every other creditor, and how long you have owed them. If you're not happy with the "rates", then by all means, pay them off and close them, or, if qualified, transfer to a lower rate card company.
CREDIT CARDS ARE OPTIONAL. Use them or not. If you do use them, you are RESPONSIBLE for the debt.


And, how about this comment;

Hurricane Katrina bankruptcies
"Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee noted "If someone in Katrina is down and out, and has no possibility of being able to repay 40 percent or more of their debts, then the new bankruptcy law doesn't apply".
The Justice Department's US Trustee program has since said it would relax the strict Chapter 7 rules for disaster victims, including those affected by Hurricane Katrina. The Justice Department trustees oversee the administration of bankruptcy cases, and have discretion in ruling over bankruptcy filings. They also said the trustees would not challenge debtors who couldn't meet paperwork requirements because documents were destroyed by the hurricane, and that victims of Hurricane Katrina may skip the credit counseling requirement before filing."

The bottom line is this, you are getting your opinion, from someone else's opinion, I am getting MY information from FACTS that exist on the internet, if someone would choose to do the research and seek the truth. If you persist in this asinine attack even after I have shown you facts to clearly dispute your lies, then you need other professional help.

Every time this topic pops up again, I am going to post this. The lies and spin have to stop. BK's cost EACH one of us $400.00 a YEAR in increased cost. I'd think people would appreciate having that money BACK in their pockets, but maybe that's just me.

[sufrommich]

4. I agree madfloridian,the bankruptcy bill is horrible

and I say that as someone who's candidate voted for it. Very disappointed in the democratic yes votes . I'm hoping we revisit that travesty of a bill once we have a solid majority and a Democratic President.It needs to go.

[ginchinchili]

5. Bankruptcy reform was necessary.

Sorry, but you can't do all things for all people. And Democrats have to understand that the government can't always bail everyone out of their financial problems, the same as the Republicans needing to understand that funding for the military and their costly war games has to have limits. I'm so f*cking tired of the left and the right battling over their respective extremist ideologies while the Middle Class is dying and our country continues to sink in economic quicksand. Extremists will mean the end of the world as we know it, and it don't feel fine. The success of this nation depends on the success of progressive pragmatists over-riding the controlling influence of our nation's extremists at both ends of the spectrum.

[madfloridian]

6. No, not that kind of reform.

I am sorry, but no no no.

I AM a pragmatist. I am tired of the spin that the bad people who declare bankruptcy are bringing our country down.

Don't pull that stuff on me or most of us.

[ginchinchili]

8. Why, because it's true?

Why don't you address my post on Biden and the Bankruptcy Bill rather that just saying, "I am sorry, but no no no." I've experienced it first hand. I was in business with a guy who was pocketing the money that was supposed to be going to our overhead expenses. He drove the company out of business, caused our third partner and myself to lose all the money we had invested into the business, which was all that we had, and the vendors that were supplying our business--these were small business people--all lost a lot of money. The guy who supplied our gasoline (we owned a small gas station) lost $150,000. In the mean time the partner who stole from us put half of the money in his wife's, and her family's, bank accounts and the other half he spent on new cars, etc., then filed for bankruptcy, just like that. The Bankruptcy Bill went into effect shortly after, but had it been in effect at the time, this guy wouldn't have gotten away with it. This is not spin, this is reality. Welcome to it.

[madfloridian]

9. Why don't you address the points in my OP

Read the op ed in the other thread I posted.

I am backing off, and we will never agree on this.

The bill was NOT needed. It was WANTED by the corporations.

[Connonym]

27. so everyone is to be punished because of one person's fraud?

oy, just oy. Meanwhile the banks are raping people every day with fees. When credit card companies charge you a late fee for being one day late and then stick on an over limit fee because the late fee put you over limit, then raise your rate and they ALL have the right to raise your rate because of universal default laws. And then when the housing market fails the feds bail out the banks but say fuck you to the people who can't sell their house, can't afford the payments and if they sell at a loss either have to pay income tax on the amount of the loss or pay the bank the difference? John Edwards said that the system is fixed for the wealthy and it's no lie. Corporate welfare is so much more fair than helping the individual :sarcasm: You are insane if you believe that the majority of people who have to declare bankruptcy are doing it out of anything other than complete and total desperation.

[juno jones]

31. Hi I'm bad

My buisness failed and I've declared bankruptcy. I had ONE credit card which I had to use in an emergency to get my 'fair trade' imports back to the states just as this recession hit. My cost on it combined with lack of buisness and increased operating costs spiraled out of control and sunk everything.

I'm happy to go back to being a proletarian renter and laborer...a lot ideologically purer that being a middle-class snob. Unlike you, I have been poor before and do not look down on the masses from my soapbox. I shall sleep at nite, at least.

I came from nothing and will go back to nothing. I wonder how this economy will treat the rest of the middle class, especially those who rely on so much convienence in their lives and have experienced nothing but luxury and privlege.

I'M BAD, BAD, BAD!!!!!! I'm going to single-handedly fuck up Wa Mu! :eyes:

But I feel OK about it, strangely.

[Tejanocrat]

39. You are bitter about your personal experience but misinformed about how bankruptcy works. Frauds can

still abuse the system under the current bankruptcy bill. The people who were hurt under the bankruptcy bill are those who needed to restructure their debt; not those who want to "cash out" after defrauding creditors.

In fact, by eliminating the option of restructuring, more people will be forced to cash out (as you will see in the coming real estate crisis -- people who would have been able to restructure will now be forced into complete liquidation when they might have been able to get back on top of their debt under the old law).

What your business associates did to you is not anything that the bankruptcy bill would prevent.

[1corona4u]

54. Your post is a lie...

madfloridian, once again, I am going to post the facts of the BK bill, in an effort to stop the lies being perpetrated here. If other people want to know the facts, please read the whole post.

First of all, this bill has NOT inhibited legitimate people from filing for BK's. In fact, BK's are on the rise. If what YOU said was true, they'd be going down, not up. Here are the latest statistics;

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, 200663,548
June 30, 200691,674
September 31, 200696,442
December 31, 200699,446
March 31, 2007117,830<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
June 30, 2007131,039<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

And, here is 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??


Yes, there is a means test now, however, it doesn't seem to be inhibiting ANY BK;
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.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Preventio...




AND, if you all knew anything, at-all, about BK's, you'd know that most companies file chapter 11. None of them get off for free, which I have explained below.

And here are the 10 largest companies that filed since 1980;
TOT. ASSETS PRE-BANK. ($MIL)
Kmart1/22/2002$17,007.00
Federated Dept. Stores1/15/1990$7,913.00
Montgomery Ward Holding Corp.7/7/1997$4,879.00
Macy (R.H.) & Co. Inc.1/27/1992$4,812.00
Allied Stores Corp. 1/15/1990$3,502.00
Southland Corp.10/24/1990$3,439.00
Ames Department Stores4/25/1990$2,130.00
The Circle K Corp.5/15/1990$2,045.00
Carter Hawley Hale Stores2/11/1991$2,045.00
Ames Department Stores Inc.8/20/2001$1,975.29
Revco D.S. Inc.7/28/1988$1,844.00

All of these companies filed chapter 11. Meaning they REORGANIZE, and pay back debt. They do NOT get to write it all off.

World Com, the largest BK-ever, filed a chapter 11. Meaning they also REORGANIZED. Once a company files Chapter 11, ALL major financial decisions must be made by the bankruptcy court. Secured creditors are paid first, followed by unsecured creditors, and then, the company stockholders. In A Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission makes sure that the corporation is not withholding information. I see no way here for any company to get off scott free.


If you hate Joe Biden FINE. But stop the lies, and making it sound like he did a bad thing to people. He voted for this bill for ONE reason. That reason was clearly stated, in his address, on the Senate Floor, and is as follows;

March 10, 2005
Statement

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.



What is so wrong with that? NOTHING.

Now, let's address the credit card rates, again.

First of all, credit cards are totally voluntary. No one forces anyone to get a card. Secondly, your "rate" depends on a lot of factors. Your current income to debt ratio, your ability to pay, your credit history, the way you currently pay your credit cards, and how much you owe every other creditor, and how long you have owed them. If you're not happy with the "rates", then by all means, pay them off and close them, or, if qualified, transfer to a lower rate card company.
CREDIT CARDS ARE OPTIONAL. Use them or not. If you do use them, you are RESPONSIBLE for the debt.


And, how about this comment;

Hurricane Katrina bankruptcies
"Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee noted "If someone in Katrina is down and out, and has no possibility of being able to repay 40 percent or more of their debts, then the new bankruptcy law doesn't apply".
The Justice Department's US Trustee program has since said it would relax the strict Chapter 7 rules for disaster victims, including those affected by Hurricane Katrina. The Justice Department trustees oversee the administration of bankruptcy cases, and have discretion in ruling over bankruptcy filings. They also said the trustees would not challenge debtors who couldn't meet paperwork requirements because documents were destroyed by the hurricane, and that victims of Hurricane Katrina may skip the credit counseling requirement before filing."

The bottom line is this, you are getting your opinion, from someone else's opinion, I am getting MY information from FACTS that exist on the internet, if someone would choose to do the research and seek the truth. If you persist in this asinine attack even after I have shown you facts to clearly dispute your lies, then you need other professional help.

Every time this topic pops up again, I am going to post this. The lies and spin have to stop. BK's cost EACH one of us $400.00 a YEAR in increased cost. I'd think people would appreciate having that money BACK in their pockets, but maybe that's just me.

[Greyhound]

11. Are you aware that, one one hand, you are crying over how...

"the Middle Class is dying and our country continues to sink in economic quicksand...", while defending the entirely false position that "Bankruptcy reform was necessary", that is hastening the demise of the "middle class"?

The idea of getting out from under creditors and getting a new start was so important to the founders that bankruptcy is the only individual economic right specifically mentioned in The Bill of Rights (Section 8, powers of Congress)? These men were intimately familiar with this old scheme and tried their best to keep the banking families out of our economy.

[Tejanocrat]

36. That's a factual misstatement. The bill didn't remove bankruptcy for corporations just consumers

This was welfare to the credit card companies at a time of unprecedented profits for that predatory industry.

[stranger81]

41. Even assuming you're right -- why so quick to cut any PERSON

who wishes to declare bankruptcy off at the knees while simultaneously making it even easier for CORPORATIONS to declare bankruptcy without significant long-term consequences?

I'm sorry, but folks who side with CORPORATIONS over PEOPLE are off their nut.

[1corona4u]

49. 2 thumbs up! n/t

[madfloridian]

7. Krugman: "The Debt-Peonage Society"

This was a brilliant article by Paul Krugman. It shows up the talking points I have been confronted with today....that we just HAD to have bankruptcy reform with all the bad common folks filing for it. I call BS on those memes.

"The Debt-Peonage Society"

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

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

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

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

So let's stop with the bleeding heart stuff, with the "it was necessary" stuff. Corporations lose nothing in bankruptcy. The ill and elderly can lose their cars and homes. It is the job of our Democrats to fix that bill.

But they won't.

[gateley]

14. Sincere, honest questions:

I've been trying to research/understand this bill and have seen several posts referring to different years -- e.g. -- well he voted that way in the 2001 (or whatever year) vote, but.... So I'm asking for your help to get a better, more accurate understanding.

1. So - was there one initial bill that was passed? What year?

2. Are the charges against Biden and others about his vote on the bill itself, or subsequent amendments?

3. What other FACTS do I need to know?

4. Can you direct me to a source other than blogs, opinions, etc?


I'm really making an effort to understand exactly what is and what isn't the topic of debate here on DU - but there's just so much info on the web I keep getting bogged down so please no quotes or editorial comments. I just want to understand the vote/bill itself.

Thanks for your help, and I'm eagerly (:7) awaiting your responses.

[madfloridian]

15. Did you read the letters I posted in the OP from the Blue Dogs and New Dems?

That is one point of view.

The media was neglectful in its duty, and it hardly reported it at all.

I talked to the aides of my congressmen here to get the info I posted in the OP that is not in quotes.

Here is E. J. Dionne's take on it...A Bill Devoid of Pity

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61634-2005Feb28.html

I posted Krugman's thoughts above.

Here are the technical parts from a bankruptcy firm:

http://www.bankruptcylawfirms.com/Bankruptcy-Act-2005.cfm

CNN says declaring bankruptcy will get harder
http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/13/pf/bankruptcy_bill/index.htm

From Findlaw
http://bankruptcy.findlaw.com/new-bankruptcy-law/

An article from common dreams with the vote:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0415-09.htm

[gateley]

20. Hi -- yes I did -- boy, you were busy! I was actually looking for clarification

on the bill itself, rather than opinions or op eds (Dionne's CNN's, etc.), since I'm usually in agreement with those sentiments and don't need to be convinced.

I finally found a straightforward presentation of the bill itself, with explanations that appear to be neutral. I was just confused as to WHAT bill WHEN, the amendments in question, etc.

Thanks for your input -- all of it! This is such an emotional issue and it's aggravating and draining to "fight it out" with others, so I applaud you and those who go at it with such gusto. I think it's good for both sides to present their viewpoints so those who have questions regarding Biden can make an informed decision as to whether or not this would be a factor in their decision to give him their support.

[madfloridian]

22. I did put neutral stuff in there. Just facts.

The facts do not portray the human side of that bill.

I am not against Biden, I support no one in the primary. I just plain don't care this time at all..

I just don't believe our party should pass something like this without being honest about the facts of it.

I thought I did a pretty good job in the OP of explaining who was in danger.

[gateley]

23. You did - and I'm appreciative of the fact - no criticism of your post was intended.

I just was looking for the nuts and bolts of the bill -- not necessarily the results (because as I said, I'm in agreement with you on this issue.) :)

[bigwillq]

16. Here is the roll call:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044

[madfloridian]

17. E. J. Dionne: A Bill Devoid of Pity

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61634-2005Feb28.html

"My late parents, who came of age during the Great Depression, offered my sister and me a couple of simple rules about money: Never take on financial burdens you can't bear, and always pay your bills. Many years later, I still think they were right.

Supporters of the bankruptcy bill that goes before the Senate this week will make their case by appealing to those excellent values. Their claim is that all kinds of people are buying lots of stuff on credit and then using allegedly lenient bankruptcy laws to say, "Oops, sorry, I won't pay."

...."You could make a case for this bankruptcy bill if it were narrowly focused on those who truly abuse the system. Instead, the bill sweeps away protections for worthy and unworthy creditors alike. This will make it much tougher for those who fall on hard times to escape burdens they confront through little fault of their own."

More on this:

What does that mean in practice? "A family driven to bankruptcy by the increased costs of caring for an elderly parent with Alzheimer's disease is treated the same as someone who maxed out his credit cards at a casino," Warren said. "A person who had a heart attack is treated the same as someone who had a spending spree at the shopping mall. A mother who works two jobs and who cannot manage the prescription drugs needed for a child with diabetes is treated the same as someone who charged a bunch of credit cards with only a vague intent to repay."

And more from Warren:

Warren and her colleagues surveyed Americans in bankruptcy courts and found that half said illness or medical bills drove them to bankruptcy. The "bigger surprise," as Warren has said, is that three-quarters of the medically bankrupt had health insurance. Which is to say that even those who have insurance are often not sufficiently covered to protect them from financial disaster.

Anyone else's heart bleeding yet?

[Reno.Muse]

19. the bankruptcy law change is backfiring on those big credit card banks

People can walk away from their over-priced, subprime home loans but not their credit cards. So the lenders are taking it in the shorts right now in their mortgage divisions. Greedy bastards!

[eridani]

28. The sky is darkening with the shadows--

--of chickens coming home to roost. Turns out that impoverishing your customer base isn't a a very good long-term business plan. Whodathunkit?

http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20071108/never_let_it_be_said_theres_nothing_to_be_cheerful_about_in_the_housing_meltdown

Life's rich tapestry of irony adds another thread:

Washington Mutual Inc. got what it wanted in 2005: A revised bankruptcy code that no longer lets people walk away from credit card bills.

The largest U.S. savings and loan didn't count on a housing recession. The new bankruptcy laws are helping drive foreclosures to a record as homeowners default on mortgages and struggle to pay credit card debts that might have been wiped out under the old code, said Jay Westbrook, a professor of business law at the University of Texas Law School in Austin and a former adviser to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

"Be careful what you wish for," Westbrook said. "They wanted to make sure that people kept paying their credit cards, and what they're getting is more foreclosures."

Washington Mutual, Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. spent $25 million in 2004 and 2005 lobbying for a legislative agenda that included changes in bankruptcy laws to protect credit card profits, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan Washington group that tracks political donations.

The banks are still paying for that decision. The surge in foreclosures has cut the value of securities backed by mortgages and led to more than $40 billion of writedowns for U.S. financial institutions.

And it's going to cost much more than that. Not to mention that, as the article goes on to note, Prince, the head of Citigroup, lost his job over this. Of course, he's still worth hundreds of millions, I'm sure, so you needn't cry any tears for him. This isn't Japan, where executives who screw up that badly commit suicide to expunge the shame and dishonour.

[dajoki]

21. Tell me about it...

I am battling foreclosure right now, problems all started when I became disabled and income was cut by more than half. To top it off, my wife was not allowed by her company to take time to stay home and care for me or take me to Dr. appts. So she got the paperwork for the FMLA and before she could hand it in, they fired her, another huge cut in income.

She worked part-time low paying jobs for 2 1/2 years until she finally got a decent job. No need to say, but by than it was too late, we are trying to claw our way back but then we get hit with this foreclosure. We are totaly baffled as to what to do or where to turn.

We are presently inquiring into as many options as we can, but everything is expensive just to get started. I always felt for people in similar situations. The point is, everything just gets more difficult as to figure a way out. I never thought something like this could happen to us, but it did. I look back and can't help thinking, I should have been prepared, but how do you prepare for something you never even think about? My advice would be pray for the best, but prepare for the worst, it could happen to anybody.

Any ideas would be appreciated!!
PM or EMAIL if possible.

[madfloridian]

24. That is so tragic. I hope somehow has some ideas for you.

Things like that should not be happening in our country. It is just wrong.

Best to you. A lot of people here have ways of helping with ideas or more.

In this field I only have opinions unfortunately.

Peace and best to you. Yes, it could happen to anymore. Some of our friends are experiencing something similar, and it is hard for them to know where to turn.

[dajoki]

25. Thank you...

very sincerely for your concern. I too have only opinions in these situations, although I will not give up. I am basically a "glass is half full" type of person, but sometimes it is tough. The worst thing that bugs me is that I was always the problem solver of the family and it sucks to not be in control. Though my children are grown and have good lives and careers, I feel like I'm letting them down and that really hurts. Again thanks for your kind words, they do help!!

[juno jones]

32. Even if you don't want to go with bankruptcy

talking to a good bankruptcy lawyer might help. My husband and I had so little to lose (just the house) that we decided to go the whole way, but our lawyer had a bunch of information and referrals for us had we decided to stick it out.

Sorry to hear about the foreclosure. We're in much the same boat, in a market where we can't sell because the market is glutted with new unsold construction (at least 12 houses in our immediate neighborhood).

Good luck in working this all out.

Solidarity, we are all in this together.

[dajoki]

42. Selling is not an option...

for the same reasons you gave. But your advice is good, it can't hurt to speak to a bankruptcy lawyer, maybe I'll find some options I didn't know about. Thank you for the thoughts. And yes...Solidarity, we are all in this together.

[alstephenson]

44. I'm so sorry to hear about your problems, please contact the Home Preservation Foundation asap...

This is the hotline number for the Home Preservation Foundation: 888-995-HOPE. This is a non-profit organization dedicated to helping folks like you at no charge. Good luck, dajoki.

[madfloridian]

45. Thanks for sharing that number. I am going to save it.

I have a feeling many people are going to be having problems.

[McCamy Taylor]

26. Moral, there are no perfect candidates. BIll sucks. If your candidate voted yes, he/she was wromg.

[1corona4u]

55. No he wasn't..

madfloridian, once again, I am going to post the facts of the BK bill, in an effort to stop the lies being perpetrated here. If other people want to know the facts, please read the whole post.

First of all, this bill has NOT inhibited legitimate people from filing for BK's. In fact, BK's are on the rise. If what YOU said was true, they'd be going down, not up. Here are the latest statistics;

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, 200663,548
June 30, 200691,674
September 31, 200696,442
December 31, 200699,446
March 31, 2007117,830<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
June 30, 2007131,039<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

And, here is 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??


Yes, there is a means test now, however, it doesn't seem to be inhibiting ANY BK;
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.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Preventio...




AND, if you all knew anything, at-all, about BK's, you'd know that most companies file chapter 11. None of them get off for free, which I have explained below.

And here are the 10 largest companies that filed since 1980;
TOT. ASSETS PRE-BANK. ($MIL)
Kmart1/22/2002$17,007.00
Federated Dept. Stores1/15/1990$7,913.00
Montgomery Ward Holding Corp.7/7/1997$4,879.00
Macy (R.H.) & Co. Inc.1/27/1992$4,812.00
Allied Stores Corp. 1/15/1990$3,502.00
Southland Corp.10/24/1990$3,439.00
Ames Department Stores4/25/1990$2,130.00
The Circle K Corp.5/15/1990$2,045.00
Carter Hawley Hale Stores2/11/1991$2,045.00
Ames Department Stores Inc.8/20/2001$1,975.29
Revco D.S. Inc.7/28/1988$1,844.00

All of these companies filed chapter 11. Meaning they REORGANIZE, and pay back debt. They do NOT get to write it all off.

World Com, the largest BK-ever, filed a chapter 11. Meaning they also REORGANIZED. Once a company files Chapter 11, ALL major financial decisions must be made by the bankruptcy court. Secured creditors are paid first, followed by unsecured creditors, and then, the company stockholders. In A Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission makes sure that the corporation is not withholding information. I see no way here for any company to get off scott free.


If you hate Joe Biden FINE. But stop the lies, and making it sound like he did a bad thing to people. He voted for this bill for ONE reason. That reason was clearly stated, in his address, on the Senate Floor, and is as follows;

March 10, 2005
Statement

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.



What is so wrong with that? NOTHING.

Now, let's address the credit card rates, again.

First of all, credit cards are totally voluntary. No one forces anyone to get a card. Secondly, your "rate" depends on a lot of factors. Your current income to debt ratio, your ability to pay, your credit history, the way you currently pay your credit cards, and how much you owe every other creditor, and how long you have owed them. If you're not happy with the "rates", then by all means, pay them off and close them, or, if qualified, transfer to a lower rate card company.
CREDIT CARDS ARE OPTIONAL. Use them or not. If you do use them, you are RESPONSIBLE for the debt.


And, how about this comment;

Hurricane Katrina bankruptcies
"Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee noted "If someone in Katrina is down and out, and has no possibility of being able to repay 40 percent or more of their debts, then the new bankruptcy law doesn't apply".
The Justice Department's US Trustee program has since said it would relax the strict Chapter 7 rules for disaster victims, including those affected by Hurricane Katrina. The Justice Department trustees oversee the administration of bankruptcy cases, and have discretion in ruling over bankruptcy filings. They also said the trustees would not challenge debtors who couldn't meet paperwork requirements because documents were destroyed by the hurricane, and that victims of Hurricane Katrina may skip the credit counseling requirement before filing."

The bottom line is this, you are getting your opinion, from someone else's opinion, I am getting MY information from FACTS that exist on the internet, if someone would choose to do the research and seek the truth. If you persist in this asinine attack even after I have shown you facts to clearly dispute your lies, then you need other professional help.

Every time this topic pops up again, I am going to post this. The lies and spin have to stop. BK's cost EACH one of us $400.00 a YEAR in increased cost. I'd think people would appreciate having that money BACK in their pockets, but maybe that's just me.

[Dr.Phool]

63. What are you, a fucking parrot?

You've only posted the same post 86 times. And a lot of it I disagree with.

You're right about a credit card being totally voluntary. It's also the only contract whose terms can be changed by one party, for any reason, at any time. And the reason that I'll never do business with Chase again.

Now, I'm a person with a credit score approaching perfect. Over 750. I had a prime rate Visa for over 10 years. Used it often. Usually carried a balance. Never late on a payment. The type of customer they wanted to keep. My former home, in another state, 1100 miles away, was being used as rental property for a while because of a weak real estate market. I decided to put it back on the market when it was vacant. I spent almost a month renovating the house, and put about $15,000 on the credit card for the work. No problem. Nowhere near my limit. Still paid on time.

About 6 months later, I had to run back for an emergency. A water pipe had broken and flooded the entire house, doing about $70,000 worth of damage. Before I left town, I figured I'd be gone for about 7-10 days. I paid all my bills in advance, like I always do. I was gone just over 2 weeks. Before I left home, I'd put the Chase bill in the wrong stack. Had I been home I would have discovered it. So anyway, I paid the bill 3 days late. First time I was ever late on a bill. The next month my interest rate had jumped from 7% to 30 fucking percent! I called to complain, and after a long runaround I was informed that they could reduce my rate to 29.5%.

I really feel sorry for the poor credit card companies. Chase also held the mortgage on that house. I had a buyer to sell it as is, and I was applying the insurance settlement to the purchase price. Even though Chase had been holding the insurance money in escrow for a fucking year, and all my mortgage payments were made on time, they wouldn't give me a payoff to sell the house, and delayed the closing for 2 months, until I finally got a VP on the phone and told them that if they didn't close this deal, they could stick that house up their ass. I wasn't paying anymore. They settled 3 days later.

As for companies filing and paying back their debts, I have some experience there too. Like when they ran my employer into the ground, and fucked me out of 75% of my pension and my lifetime health care after 31 years. The new owner bought the "assets" for a song, and turned a $300 million profit.

As for Biden, he's a world class bullshitter. Nice guy, I wouldn't mind going to the bar with him, but a bullshitter.A couple of months ago, I got to spend the day in Orlando with all the Dem candidates, one on one. I spent most of the day with Dennis and Elizabeth. Part of it with Edwards. Had a nice 30 minute conversation with Dodd. And about an hour with Biden. He came walking over, shook my hand, and said enthusiastically, "Hey, How have you been? I haven't seen you in a long time"! All I could think of, was, "You've never laid eyes on me in your life". He did the same to my buddy 15 minutes later.

[1corona4u]

68. First of all.....

Don't use the f' word when addressing me. I don't use it, and I don't appreciate it. Secondly, I posted the facts several times, in the event some would miss it. And they will. Sorry you found it so offensive.

The problems you mentioned in your post did not spring from the BK bill. Those have been around for a long, long, time. I know for a fact they existed in the 90's.

Chase holds my mortgage, and my new primary credit card, which is at a low single digit rate, fixed, so I have no issue with them. I'm not sure why you would have needed to wait that long for a pay off, as it's included in your statement online. If needed in writing, you can fax them, and they will send it to you. Took me 2 days last time. I suspect it had something to do with the insurance, and the house not being repaired though. But, I don't pay any bills through the mail, other than my HOA payment. Everything is paid online. Much easier, and you can do it from anywhere. I don't know why anyone wouldn't utilize this.

A while back Capital One, who I have 5 other cards with, changed my rate on the card I used most often, and had since 1995, to something I found unacceptable.(10.9%) They changed everyone's rate, with a letter giving a month's notice to cancel or accept. I closed the card, and transfered the balance to my Chase card, with 0% interest until June 2008. Of course it won't take me that long to pay it off, but it's nice to know if I had to, I could extend it that long.

Maybe the hidden issue with your card, at that time, wasn't just the late payment, but the fact that you were holding a high balance at the time? I mean, if you had that kind of cash,(15K?) you would have just paid for everything in cash, right? Limits mean nothing. Unless you're buying a car or something where your debt to income ratio is considered, but if, for instance, you normally didn't have a balance on that card, and all of a sudden, you do, and then you make a late payment, perhaps that spooked them. Make no mistake, while they aren't going broke, all financial institutions are losing money now, because of the loss of jobs, homes, etc.

Here's the rub though. People complain about this stuff all the time, but how many people actually do something about it? When was the last time you contacted your reps, congressmen, senators, etc., to let them know. People like to complain, but are too busy to do anything about it. That's why these companies get away with it.

But again, this did not stem from the BK bill. credit card companies have always had the upper hand. Do I think it's fair, not always. But you have the option to close those accounts and get cards with better terms.

[Dr.Phool]

70. The problem with the mortgage was 2 different divisions of Chase

I wanted to just apply the insurance to the payoff, They wanted me to pay it off, and then refund the money. It drove the escrow agent insane. And I didn't have a spare $100k sitting around. I was letting the guy have it for what was owed.

And I do pay all my bills online, usually on receipt. But, I didn't see that one from 1100 miles away.

The ONLY issue with the card was ONE late payment. As I said, my credit score is near perfect.

[pattmarty]

29. That's probably why Sirota isn't working for CAP anymore.

[pattmarty]

30. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't Obama vote in favor of the bill?

[Tejanocrat]

43. Obama DID NOT vote for the bankruptcy bullshit. Here is an analysis of the bill

BANKRUPTCY ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2005 ... Senate: Yea-74, Nay 25; House: Yea-302, Nay 126


The Legislation:

The middle-class position:
The Middle Class Opposes: In 2005, a record two million American households were forced to declare personal bankruptcy. Studies suggest that the majority were middle-class families with children who were pushed to insolvency by job losses, massive unexpected medical bills or the devastating break-up of their families. In recent years, the leading cause of bankruptcy has not been irresponsible consumer spending but the loss of a job. Medical crisis is the second leading cause of bankruptcy. This bill would limit Americans? ability to receive federal bankruptcy protection when they lose their jobs, incur uninsured and uncovered medical bills or when a wage-earning spouse leaves. The legislation, which has been introduced every session since 1998 but never passed before, enacts the wish list of the credit card industry, boosting the profits of credit issuers by making it easier for them to collect from even the most financially distressed families. It empowers the credit card industry to saddle middle-class families with unreasonable interest rates and payment agreements by expanding their ability to re-evaluate and terminate debtor agreements without the consent of a court. The bill also creates a windfall for unregulated credit counseling agencies. Amendments that would have allowed the elderly to hold onto their homes and would have shielded veterans and active duty military from the most punitive parts of the bill did not pass the Senate. An amendment that would have protected employees? earnings and retirement savings when their employer files for bankruptcy was also rejected.



from the experts:
“The people we found to be profoundly affected are not some distant underclass. They're the very heart of the middle class. These are educated Americans with decent jobs, homes and families. But one stumble, and they end up in complete financial collapse, wiped out by medical bills.”

—Dr. Elizabeth Warren, Professor, Harvard Law School (February 3, 2005)



“The bankruptcy bill was written by and for credit card companies, and the industry's political muscle is the reason it seems unstoppable. But the bill also fits into the… steady erosion of the protection the government provides against personal misfortune, even as ordinary families face ever-growing economic insecurity. The bill would make it much harder for families in distress to write off their debts and make a fresh start. Instead, many debtors would find themselves on an endless treadmill of payments… And any senator who votes for the bill should be ashamed.”

—Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics and International Affairs, Princeton University and New York Times columnist (March 8, 2005)

[pattmarty]

47. This does not tell me he voted for or against the bill.

[1corona4u]

56. Obama doesn't vote for anything...

controversial...check his record. If it can come back to haunt him., he just doesn't vote. Didn't show up to vote for the SCHIP bill, or the Kyle Lieberman bill...and lots of others. there's a pattern there...

[Tejanocrat]

57. Your understanding of Obama's record is approximately equal to your understand of bankruptcy = zero

[1corona4u]

59. LOL...

I don't think so....both are 100% correct.

[Tejanocrat]

61. How's the weather on your planet?

[pattmarty]

48. I stand corrected, googled it and found the vote, Obama voted against.

[madfloridian]

33. Found the cached letter from the New Dems posted at TNR in 2005

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:B78s3toxo9gJ:www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml%3Fpid%3D2584%253Cbr%2520/%253E+%22noam+scheiber%22+bankruptcy+bill&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us

3-08-05

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
H-232, The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker:

We write to encourage you to bring bankruptcy reform legislation to the House floor as soon as the Senate completes its consideration of the bill. The New Democrat Coalition has backed common sense bankruptcy reform in the past and helped in passing the bankruptcy reform bill by overwhelming margins in the House of Representatives during the 108th Congress.

Over the last several years, we have worked to advance reasonable and balanced legislation that would require individuals who have the ability to repay their debts to do so, while preserving the important safety net of bankruptcy under Chapter 7 for those who truly need it. We believe that responsible bankruptcy reform embodies the New Democrat principle of personal responsibility, while at the same time adding important new consumer protections such as requiring enhanced credit card disclosure information and encouraging participation in consumer credit counseling.

It is our hope that the House of Representatives will consider this important piece of legislation in an expedited manner. We stand ready to work with you and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass bankruptcy reform into law.

Sincerely,

Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher
Rep. Adam Smith
Rep. Ron Kind
Rep. Artur Davis
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy
Rep. John Larson
Rep. Stephanie Herseth
Rep. Dennis Moore
Rep. Mike McIntyre
Rep. Joe Crowley
Rep. Jay Israel
Rep. David Wu
Rep. Diane Hooley
Rep. Melissa Bean
Rep. Jim Davis
Rep. Harold E. Ford, Jr.
Rep. Ed Case
Rep. Jay Inslee
Rep. Shelley Berkeley
Rep. Gregory W. Meeks

The write-up about it is there as well.

[Dr.Phool]

64. I let Jim Davis know about it, when he was running for Governor.

[Imagevision]

46. Don't forget, Bush passed Eminent Domain law along with The bankruptcy bill - ouch!

[1corona4u]

50. I'm going to post the facts, again.

madfloridian, once again, I am going to post the facts of the BK bill, in an effort to stop the lies being perpetrated here. If other people want to know the facts, please read the whole post.

First of all, this bill has NOT inhibited legitimate people from filing for BK's. In fact, BK's are on the rise. If what YOU said was true, they'd be going down, not up. Here are the latest statistics;

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, 200663,548
June 30, 200691,674
September 31, 200696,442
December 31, 200699,446
March 31, 2007117,830<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
June 30, 2007131,039<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

And, here is 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??


Yes, there is a means test now, however, it doesn't seem to be inhibiting ANY BK;
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.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Preventio...




AND, if you all knew anything, at-all, about BK's, you'd know that most companies file chapter 11. None of them get off for free, which I have explained below.

And here are the 10 largest companies that filed since 1980;
TOT. ASSETS PRE-BANK. ($MIL)
Kmart1/22/2002$17,007.00
Federated Dept. Stores1/15/1990$7,913.00
Montgomery Ward Holding Corp.7/7/1997$4,879.00
Macy (R.H.) & Co. Inc.1/27/1992$4,812.00
Allied Stores Corp. 1/15/1990$3,502.00
Southland Corp.10/24/1990$3,439.00
Ames Department Stores4/25/1990$2,130.00
The Circle K Corp.5/15/1990$2,045.00
Carter Hawley Hale Stores2/11/1991$2,045.00
Ames Department Stores Inc.8/20/2001$1,975.29
Revco D.S. Inc.7/28/1988$1,844.00

All of these companies filed chapter 11. Meaning they REORGANIZE, and pay back debt. They do NOT get to write it all off.

World Com, the largest BK-ever, filed a chapter 11. Meaning they also REORGANIZED. Once a company files Chapter 11, ALL major financial decisions must be made by the bankruptcy court. Secured creditors are paid first, followed by unsecured creditors, and then, the company stockholders. In A Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission makes sure that the corporation is not withholding information. I see no way here for any company to get off scott free.


If you hate Joe Biden FINE. But stop the lies, and making it sound like he did a bad thing to people. He voted for this bill for ONE reason. That reason was clearly stated, in his address, on the Senate Floor, and is as follows;

March 10, 2005
Statement

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.



What is so wrong with that? NOTHING.

Now, let's address the credit card rates, again.

First of all, credit cards are totally voluntary. No one forces anyone to get a card. Secondly, your "rate" depends on a lot of factors. Your current income to debt ratio, your ability to pay, your credit history, the way you currently pay your credit cards, and how much you owe every other creditor, and how long you have owed them. If you're not happy with the "rates", then by all means, pay them off and close them, or, if qualified, transfer to a lower rate card company.
CREDIT CARDS ARE OPTIONAL. Use them or not. If you do use them, you are RESPONSIBLE for the debt.


And, how about this comment;

Hurricane Katrina bankruptcies
"Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee noted "If someone in Katrina is down and out, and has no possibility of being able to repay 40 percent or more of their debts, then the new bankruptcy law doesn't apply".
The Justice Department's US Trustee program has since said it would relax the strict Chapter 7 rules for disaster victims, including those affected by Hurricane Katrina. The Justice Department trustees oversee the administration of bankruptcy cases, and have discretion in ruling over bankruptcy filings. They also said the trustees would not challenge debtors who couldn't meet paperwork requirements because documents were destroyed by the hurricane, and that victims of Hurricane Katrina may skip the credit counseling requirement before filing."

The bottom line is this, you are getting your opinion, from someone else's opinion, I am getting MY information from FACTS that exist on the internet, if someone would choose to do the research and seek the truth. If you persist in this asinine attack even after I have shown you facts to clearly dispute your lies, then you need other professional help.

Every time this topic pops up again, I am going to post this. The lies and spin have to stop. BK's cost EACH one of us $400.00 a YEAR in increased cost. I'd think people would appreciate having that money BACK in their pockets, but maybe that's just me.

[Dr.Phool]

65. Braaaak,....Squawk,.... Polly want a cracker.

[madfloridian]

67. Heh heh

Glad I can't read that post. Sounds pretty parroty to me. :rofl:

[1corona4u]

74. LOL...

You can't read a fact filled post? Are facts to you what garlic is to a vampire?

[BrklynLiberal]

78. Polly is on my ignore list. It sure makes things more pleasant around here.

[PassingFair]

71. Now I'M going to start SWEARING!

Once was quite enough.

Stop with the SPAM, PLEASE.

[1corona4u]

75. Nobody spammed anything...

I actually replies to people's comments, with the facts from the one post. Jeez....relax.

[PassingFair]

76. Posting the SAME post, over and over again is SPAMMING.

And BORING.

We can read. Once is ENOUGH.

[1corona4u]

77. So scroll past it.

You're not my mother. Stop acting like it. It was done HOURS ago. Get over it.

[Dr.Phool]

79. Listen Einstein.

You're not going to earn much credibility here quoting Tex Sensenbrenner. Now go eat your cracker.