View Full Version : Two events give us the Bush agenda in a nutshell
Hurin_Rules
05-12-2005, 17:59
1. After making loud noises about individuals filing for bankrupcy, Bush passes a bill lobbied for by banks and big credit card corporations which prevents more of the American people from filing for bankrupcy:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050414/us_nm/congress_bankruptcy_dc_18
2. A few days later, when a federal judge allows United Airlines, while in bankrupcy protection, to eliminate its own pension plan to save money, Bush is completely silent. While the pension plan will have to be handed over to the government, give reduced benefits and be paid for by American taxpayers, the pension plans of top executives, on the other hand, are 'proofed' and therefore won't suffer:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/buggs/1884536
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050510/ap_on_bi_ge/united_airlines
The message: don't you dare default on your responsibilities, unless you're a major corporation, in which case, go ahead, and remember to get the American people to pay so you can make higher profits.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-12-2005, 18:05
The message: don't you dare default on your responsibilities, unless you're a major corporation, in which case, go ahead, and remember to get the American people to pay so you can make higher profits.
Its always been so unfourtunatly. Bush is no better or worse than other presidents in this matter.
Regarding #1: good (though it is actually the President who signs the bill, the Congress passed it).
Regarding #2: The President doesn't control the Courts.
Hurin_Rules
05-12-2005, 18:34
Regarding #2: The President doesn't control the Courts.
When the Schiavo thing went down the Republicans went ballistic and tried to use congress to get the courts to intervene. Bush even came back from his holiday early to sign it in the middle of the night. When a corporation takes advantage of its employees and makes the US taxpayer foot the bill, however, there is complete silence. I find that telling.
When the Schiavo thing went down the Republicans went ballistic and tried to use congress to get the courts to intervene. Bush even came back from his holiday early to sign it in the middle of the night. When a corporation takes advantage of its employees and makes the US taxpayer foot the bill, however, there is complete silence. I find that telling.
The Schiavo thing, as it were, was a Congressional action (which was not limited to Republicans if you note the vote): specifically a call by the Congress for a Denovo Review. A Denovo ruling, if allowed, permits new evidence to be introduced at the Appellate level. Typically, such is not possible as appeals are constrained by what preceded them. Bush signed the bill as he has with every other bill brought before him. He has not vetoed once in five years. The Court did not recognize this action (and rightly so in my opinion). This reinforces the earlier point. Neither the Congress nor the Executive dictate Court action.
If the point is that the President should complain about the ruling even though he has no jurisdiction or impact on the issue, I'm not sure that really constitutes a deep insight into an agenda.
Hurin_Rules
05-12-2005, 19:18
If the point is that the President should complain about the ruling even though he has no jurisdiction or impact on the issue, I'm not sure that really constitutes a deep insight into an agenda.
Come now Pindar, I'm not asking the president to 'complain', and as president he most certainly could have a huge impact on the issue if he chose. Why couldn't he have gotten legislation passed to prevent corporations from doing exactly the same thing that he and congress just prevented individuals from doing? Obviously, because he is fine with laws that protect corporations, but vocal in his assaults on laws that protect the American people.
Come now Pindar, I'm not asking the president to 'complain', and as president he most certainly could have a huge impact on the issue if he chose. He could easily have gotten legislation passed to prevent corporations from doing exactly the same thing that he and congress just prevented individuals from doing. Obviously, he is fine with laws that protect corporations, but he is vocal in his assaults on laws that protect the American people.
Passing legislation is not as simple as you suppose. Further, and perhaps more to the point: the Juridical standard in the U.S. allows Judges to determine both legality and appliabiltiy. Thus, a Judge bent on a verdict could simply state recently passed law X does not apply to situation Y by narrowing the meaning of the law.
Hurin, do Canadians talk a lot about US politics?
The reason I ask is that here in the backroom at least, Canadians have a lot more to say about the USA than their own government/county. Does this reflect a general Canadian fascination with things American or is it just the nature of patrons here?
This is in no way a criticism. Say what you want. I’m just curious is all.
Hurin_Rules
05-12-2005, 19:39
Hurin, do Canadians talk a lot about US politics?
The reason I ask is that here in the backroom at least, Canadians have a lot more to say about the USA than their own government/county. Does this reflect a general Canadian fascination with things American or is it just the nature of patrons here?
The short answer: yes. Canada is a small country, the USA a large one (in terms of population and economic, military and political clout), so events in the USA often have more of an effect on us Canadians than what happens in our own country. As one of our best Prime Ministers once noted, living beside the USA is a lot like sleeping next to an elephant: no matter how good natured and kindly the beast, one can't help but be affected by each shift and rustle it makes.
Hurin_Rules
05-12-2005, 19:40
Passing legislation is not as simple as you suppose. Further, and perhaps more to the point: the Juridical standard in the U.S. allows Judges to determine both legality and appliabiltiy. Thus, a Judge bent on a verdict could simply state recently passed law X does not apply to situation Y by narrowing the meaning of the law.
I never said it would be simple. And yet, Bush and his party managed to pass the laws against individual bankrupcy, no? Why can't he do the same--or at least try to do the same-- for corporations?
I never said it would be simple. And yet, Bush and his party managed to pass the laws against individual bankrupcy, no? Why can't he do the same--or at least try to do the same-- for corporations?
No, you never said it would be simple, but you did say he could easily get legislation passed. This is not the case. The process is fairly involved. The recently passed bill was a long time in the making.
Second, individual bankruptcy is not illegal. The recent legislation rightly makes filling for bankruptcy status where ones' depts are simply erased more difficult as those who have accrued the dept have a base responsibility to that dept.
Third, there are laws that dictate the terms of corporate bankruptcy as well. In the recent case, the company asked for a specific judgment that removes a base responsibility the corporation has toward pensions. This is not a Legislative determination, but a Judicial one as there is a standing law. The petitioner is asking for a revoking of duty. This does not involve the Executive.
Hurin_Rules
05-12-2005, 20:44
No, you never said it would be simple, but you did say he could easily get legislation passed. This is not the case. The process is fairly involved. The recently passed bill was a long time in the making.
When the president's party controls the white house and both houses of congress (something that hasn't happened in what... a quarter century?) it is fair to say that he has a relatively easy time passing bills--or should have, if he is an effective leader.
Second, individual bankruptcy is not illegal. The recent legislation rightly makes filling for bankruptcy status where ones' depts are simply erased more difficult as those who have accrued the dept have a base responsibility to that dept.
Third, there are laws that dictate the terms of corporate bankruptcy as well. In the recent case, the company asked for a specific judgment that removes a base responsibility the corporation has toward pensions. This is not a Legislative determination, but a Judicial one as there is a standing law. The petitioner is asking for a revoking of duty. This does not involve the Executive.
You honestly don't see any similarities here? The president launches a major effort to make it harder for individuals to escape a 'base responsiblity' for their debts through bankruptcy, but when a multinational corporation tries to escape a 'base responsibility' for its debts through bankruptcy, we hear not a peep?
The congress makes the laws and the president passes and executes them. He can't change the laws one minute and hide behind them another.
PanzerJaeger
05-12-2005, 20:51
In my understanding, a huge company going bankrupt would have a big impact on many people's lives.. ie layoffs or a complete disintegration of the company.
Thats a lot different than Joe Spend who cant pay for that BMW he bought.
In any event as Pindar said the president doesnt have control over this... thats never stopped the Bush Bashers before though.
Hurin_Rules
05-12-2005, 21:13
In any event as Pindar said the president doesnt have control over this...
Well then, if Pindar said it, it must be true. ~:rolleyes:
Come on, of course he has control over the laws that get passed! He just demonstrated this in the case of personal bankruptcy. He is the executive, the constitution gives him veto power, and he leads the party with majorities in both houses of congress!
Don Corleone
05-12-2005, 21:29
Hurin,
1) Show me where in the entire legislative agenda for personal bankruptcy reform Bush was listed as one of the sponsors. Why do you say 'Bush got it passed'?
2) While I agree wholeheartedly with clamping down on personaly bankruptcy reform (more on why in a second), I do find the bankruptcy court's findings (not Bush's free pass for a buddy) disgusting. It's a big part of the reason why American corporations aren't even more dominant globally then we currently are. Look at the industries we excel at: semiconductors, software, financial services... very little government help and if you screw up, tough luck, you're going belly up. Look at the industries government does bail out on a regular basis: airlines, automotive... they just get worse. Why? Because there's no pain attached to poor decisions.
I totally disagree with PJ's characterization that somehow a corporate entity has a value in it's own right. People won't stop flying, and those planes will still need employees. So if United folds and Continental picks up all those routes, then Continental will hire back any workers that were necessary in the first place. It's how a capitalist economy stays efficient. Propping up bloated slugs that cannot or will not make sound decisions regarding their operating policies and funding their mistakes is a formula for disaster.
Now, why do I agree with the personal bankruptcy reforms? Did you know that as long as you reside in the state of Florida when you file, you're allowed to retain: 2houses, up to 2 vehicles per registered drivers in your family, timeshares, investment vehicles, the works. It is a crisis down here to the South. More than a few disreputable people run up huge credit lines on houses, cars, vacation homes, then move to Florida and voila, it's all free.
Except it isn't. Any of the rest of us pay for it in higher interest rates. Shame on them, and I wish the government would bring back debters prison for people like that.
Hurin_Rules
05-12-2005, 22:26
1) Show me where in the entire legislative agenda for personal bankruptcy reform Bush was listed as one of the sponsors. Why do you say 'Bush got it passed'?
I should have been more specific: congress passed it, Bush signed it into law.
Bush repeatedly praised the legislation and promised to sign it when it was in the house:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7575010/
I agree with you that some people were abusing the bankruptcy laws; but while we're cracking down on individuals that abuse, shouldn't we also be cracking down on corporations that abuse? All those corporations in Bermuda evading taxes and abusing the system-- are they any better than individuals?
Don Corleone
05-12-2005, 22:40
Did you read my post? I advocate market driven, throw'em to the wolves capitalism. Where in all of that did you get the impression that I think we should go soft on corporations filing for bankruptcy?
When the president's party controls the white house and both houses of congress (something that hasn't happened in what... a quarter century?) it is fair to say that he has a relatively easy time passing bills--or should have, if he is an effective leader.
Alas. For a law to come to be it must have a sponsor. It must often pass through a relevant committee. It must pass through two distinct legislative bodies before it goes to the White House. Typically revisions are made during this process which means the bill must be resubmitted. If this occurs in one body it must also be recognized by the other body. This ping pong action continues until a final version is passed.
The President is not the leader of Congress. He does not control it. Party affiliation does not equal control. The U.S. is not a Parliamentary System: individual Congressmen and Senators have their own agendas that may or may not correspond with the White House and as long as they have local support are independant.
That the Congress is controlled by one Party does make things easier than when there is division, but this does not mean it is easy or that the President controls the flotsam and jetsam.
You honestly don't see any similarities here?
I am constrained by my understanding of the system. A President cannot control a Judge's ruling.
The congress makes the laws and the president passes and executes them. He can't change the laws one minute and hide behind them another.
Presidents don't execute laws nor change them.
Well then, if Pindar said it, it must be true.
The sooner you come to this understanding the sooner you will escape intellectual befuddlement.
One has only to step from behind the curtain :curtain: and into the light to understand its warmth. :sunny:
Did you read my post? I advocate market driven, throw'em to the wolves capitalism.
Hear! Hear!
Hurin_Rules
05-12-2005, 23:10
Did you read my post? I advocate market driven, throw'em to the wolves capitalism. Where in all of that did you get the impression that I think we should go soft on corporations filing for bankruptcy?
Hmmm... did you read my post? I advocated treating individuals and corporations in the same way. Where in all of that did you get the impression that I think we should go soft on corporations filing for bankruptcy?
I'm saying if you crack down on individuals, the least you could do is be fair and crack down on corporations at the same time.
Hurin_Rules
05-12-2005, 23:19
Alas. For a law to come to be it must have a sponsor. It must often pass through a relevant committee. It must pass through two distinct legislative bodies before it goes to the White House. Typically revisions are made during this process which means the bill must be resubmitted. If this occurs in one body it must also be recognized by the other body. This ping pong action continues until a final version is passed.
The President is not the leader of Congress. He does not control it. Party affiliation does not equal control. The U.S. is not a Parliamentary System: individual Congressmen and Senators have their own agendas that may or may not correspond to with the White House and as long as they have local support are independant.
Ah, I'm sorry, you're right. The president has no control at all over the lawmaking process. ~:rolleyes:
C'mon, you're being deliberately obtuse here. Of course the president is not a dictator. But to say he has no control over congress is just ludicrous. He has veto power, a major voice in the party that controls both houses of congress, and he takes credit for passing bills.
I am constrained by my understanding of the system. A President cannot control a Judge's ruling.
Where did I say he could? He does, however, have a major say in how his party reacts to the ruling and what legislation will be passed to respond to it. He clearly showed this in the recent law on personal bankruptcy.
Presidents don't execute laws nor change them.
Why is the presidency called the executive branch of government then?
Under 'executive branch', my dictionary reads:
n : the branch of the United States government that is responsible for carrying out the laws [syn: Executive, Office of the President]
]
Don Corleone
05-12-2005, 23:41
Hmmm... did you read my post? I advocated treating individuals and corporations in the same way. Where in all of that did you get the impression that I think we should go soft on corporations filing for bankruptcy?
I'm saying if you crack down on individuals, the least you could do is be fair and crack down on corporations at the same time.
:furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: I SAID THE SAME DAMN THING How much harsher then "Let United go belly up" can I be? You want me to hunt down the CEO's son and snipe him? Bring you his head on a pike? For crying out loud Hurin, you gotta recognize when people aren't arguing with you.
Don Corleone
05-12-2005, 23:44
Ah, I'm sorry, you're right. The president has no control at all over the lawmaking process. ~:rolleyes:
C'mon, you're being deliberately obtuse here. Of course the president is not a dictator. But to say he has no control over congress is just ludicrous. He has veto power, a major voice in the party that controls both houses of congress, and he takes credit for passing bills.
Where did I say he could? He does, however, have a major say in how his party reacts to the ruling and what legislation will be passed to respond to it. He clearly showed this in the recent law on personal bankruptcy.
Why is the presidency called the executive branch of government then?
Under 'executive branch', my dictionary reads:
n : the branch of the United States government that is responsible for carrying out the laws [syn: Executive, Office of the President]
]
Pindar's not being obtuse here Hurin, you are. I thought you seriously wanted to talk about this crap with United and our bankruptcy courts forcing taxpayers to fund another failure.
But you don't. You want to make this a bash Bush moment, even though he had absolutely nothing to do with it. You're a piece of work... people agree with you and you turn around and say "Aha! But you disagree.... Bush is guilty, guilty, guilty!!!!" Grow up.
Hurin_Rules
05-12-2005, 23:53
:furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: I SAID THE SAME DAMN THING How much harsher then "Let United go belly up" can I be? You want me to hunt down the CEO's son and snipe him? Bring you his head on a pike? For crying out loud Hurin, you gotta recognize when people aren't arguing with you.
My good man Don, I was trying to point out that you had done the same: you had assumed I was disagreeing with you when I wasn't.
Anyway, lets put that behind us. We both agree that in the interests of fairness, if nothing else, individuals and corporations should be treated alike. Pindar and PJ seem to disagree. Perhaps we should let them respond?
P.S. Of course this is supposed to be a Bush bashing thread. Didn't you read the title?!?!?!
Don Corleone
05-13-2005, 00:11
Well, fair enough, but for cyring out loud man, Bush did not give that homeless guy down at your local hospital stomach cancer. He didn't create mutant cockroaches in a lab, he didn't shoot his neighbor's dog. He does some stupid things sometimes, granted, but you can't let that rage blind you. The United story goes way, way way beyond Bush. It's about American government in general, regardless of who's at the helm. I'm not a believer in pensions, because they require an unrealistic rate of growth in the company in order to be able to fund them, but I am a huge huge believer in the requirement that companies honor all debts. What comes next, United can't afford it so some judge orders the taxpayers have to pay their fuel bills?
PanzerJaeger
05-13-2005, 01:06
Well then, if Pindar said it, it must be true. ~:rolleyes:
Forgive me for agreeing with Pindar...
Gawain of Orkeny
05-13-2005, 01:56
But to say he has no control over congress is just ludicrous. He has veto power, a major voice in the party that controls both houses of congress, and he takes credit for passing bills.
Then how come he cant even get his judicial appointments to get a vote in the senate? Once more most people give the president too much credit for what good happens under their admnistration and also to much blame for what goes wrong. He hasnt near the power you seem to suggest.
Don Corleone
05-13-2005, 02:01
Yeah, no kidding. Clinton had a Democratic Senate & House and couldn't get socialized medicine passed. Carter got stomped every time he said boo (Reagan and Bush I were dealing with opposite congressional majorities).
Ah, I'm sorry, you're right. The president has no control at all over the lawmaking process. ~:rolleyes:
C'mon, you're being deliberately obtuse here. Of course the president is not a dictator. But to say he has no control over congress is just ludicrous. He has veto power, a major voice in the party that controls both houses of congress, and he takes credit for passing bills.
The President does not control Congress. He is part of a distinct Branch. He can veto bills, but cannot determine what comes to his desk. This does not mean he cannot show support or condemn some work in process, but that is not control. It is rhetoric that has more or less force depending on the popularity of the President at the time. Now the President clearly supported the bankruptcy bill, and rightly fully so. If you wish to criticise that support fine, but that doesn't really fit into the second point you tried to connect it to. The United ruling was Judicial and as I already stated referred to removing a standard duty to pensions. This duty is part of standing law. This is not connected to the President. He cannot control Judicial rulings or create a law or create some other provision that anticipates and counteracts a Judges ruling on a particular bankruptcy case.
Why is the presidency called the executive branch of government then?
Under 'executive branch', my dictionary reads:
n : the branch of the United States government that is responsible for carrying out the laws [syn: Executive, Office of the President]
]
The Executive and the Executive Branch is not the same thing. Your comments have been directed to the President. The President does not execute law or create it. Now there are elements within the Executive Branch that serve an executing function. A simple example would be the Attorney General. This post is nominated by the President and it is a Cabinet Position, but the position is distinct from the Presidency. The Attorney General is the highest ranking officer of the Court and his job is to enforce the law, even when that involves the Presidency itself. This is why the President also has a Chief Legal Council.
Anyway, lets put that behind us. We both agree that in the interests of fairness, if nothing else, individuals and corporations should be treated alike. Pindar and PJ seem to disagree. Perhaps we should let them respond?
I don't think you have understood the thrust of my posts. My central point has been directed at your second criticism: the Court ruling. I have been pointing out that the President does not have control over a Judicial ruling to overturn pension duties. Without control condemnation seems difficult to maintain unless it is criticism that he didn't complain. This means your central criticism of a Bush agenda fails. This does not mean I support corporate welfare. I see such as smacking of socialist effeminacy. I believe in the Market and would rather see weak companies go down.
Hurin_Rules
05-13-2005, 03:27
The Executive and the Executive Branch is not the same thing. Your comments have been directed to the President. The President does not execute law or create it. Now there are elements within the Executive Branch that serve an executing function. A simple example would be the Attorney General. This post is nominated by the President and it is a Cabinet Position, but the position is distinct from the Presidency. The Attorney General is the highest ranking officer of the Court and his job is to enforce the law, even when that involves the Presidency itself. This is why the President also has a Chief Legal Council.
Then why does the dictionary definition and common parlance hold 'executive' and 'office of the president' as synonymous?
You're splitting hairs here.
You're honestly going to tell me that the president has no control over his own attorney general, whom he appoints, consults with, and fires at will? Come on.
I don't think you have understood the thrust of my posts. My central point has been directed at your second criticism: the Court ruling. I have been pointing out that the President does not have control over a Judicial ruling to overturn pension duties. Without control condemnation seems difficult to maintain unless it is criticism that he didn't comlain. This means your central criticism of a Bush agenda fails. This does not mean I support corporate welfare. I see such as smacking of socialist effeminacy. I believe in the Market and would rather see weak companies go down.
And I don't think you have understood the thrust of my post. One of my central points has been that the president regularly responds to problems with the laws of the nation by playing a central role in the making of new laws. He just did this with the personal bankruptcy laws. I never said the president could or should control judicial rulings. It is his repsonse to the rulings I am talking about, not the rulings themselves. And if you examine his response to the bankruptcy laws regarding individuals, and compare them to his response to the bankruptcy laws regarding corporations, you will see a clear dichotomy that illuminates his agenda.
Aurelian
05-13-2005, 06:07
Since everybody seems to have jumped on Hurin for discussing the "Bush" agenda in regards to bankruptcy...
Let's just restate this and talk about the Republican agenda instead.
If you look at the bankruptcy bill that recently passed through Congress, you'll notice that the Republicans voted as a party both for the bill, and against a number of amendments that were proposed that would have eliminated loopholes that protect only the wealthy. Some Democrats crossed party lines and voted with the Republicans on various votes (because they're getting money from the same sources), but the Republicans were rock solidly in favor of this one.
Why? Well, first of all, MBNA is the number one donor to the Republican party. This bill was essentially written by the credit card companies and was a way to pay them back for all the love and attention they've given to Washington's political class.
The basic idea behind this bill was to make it easier for credit card companies to collect debt from people undergoing extreme financial hardships. Over half the bankruptcies in the United States are due to medical emergencies, with the rest overwhelmingly due to job loss and divorce.
What this bill has done is to make it harder for people to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy... the kind of bankruptcy that involves the sale of your assets to cover your debts, the write-off of the remainder of the debt, and a fresh financial start. Now, Chapter 7 will involve means-testing. If your income is equal to or greater than the median income in your state, and if you could conceivably pay $6,000 or more over the course of five years, you will not be allowed to file for Chapter 7. Instead, you'll have to file for Chapter 13, which involves paying your debt off over a 3 to 5 year period on the basis of a court-approved plan.
So... this bill means that Chapter 7 will be denied to a good portion of the professional middle-class who are going through hard times and looking for a way to get a fresh start.
What this bill will not do is hold the upper class, or the business class, to similar standards.
The most egregious exemption (and one specifically written into the bill) will allow the wealthy to evade their responsibilities by setting up "asset protection trusts":
"For years, wealthy people looking to keep their money out of the reach of domestic creditors have set up these trusts offshore. But since 1997, lawmakers in five states -- Alaska, Delaware, Nevada, Rhode Island and Utah -- have passed legislation exempting assets held domestically in such trusts from the federal bankruptcy code. People who want to establish trusts do not have to reside in the five states; they need only set their trust up through an institution in one of them." LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/02/business/02bankrupt.html)
Sen. Schumer (D) proposed an amendment that would have eliminated this massive loophole for the wealthy... and every Republican voted against it.
Go here (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/6/63144/06015) for a list of some other amendments that the Republicans voted against en-masse. They included: Amendment 37 - that would have exempted debtors from means testing if their financial problems were caused by identity theft; Amendment 17 - that would have provided a homestead floor for the elderly; and Amendment 16 - that would have given veterans and active duty military personnel much needed protections. Go read, there are some other good ones.
The trend here though is simple. The Republicans killed amendments that would have let elderly people keep their homes, and would have protected victims of identity theft and veterans... but they voted unanimously in favor of a provision that lets wealthy debtors keep their assets in protected trusts.
In case it needs to be noted, Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the type of bankruptcy proceedings that corporations use, was not affected by the bill.
This is the kind of thing that Hurin was pointing out. The Republicans are completely and wholeheartedly in favor of a system that denies middle class families in crisis bankruptcy protections... while they simultaneously make sure that the wealthy and business elites are covered.
Then why does the dictionary definition and common parlance hold 'executive' and 'office of the president' as synonymous?
You're splitting hairs here.
I can't speak to your dictionary, but in the U.S. common parlance is to say 'the Executive'. The article designates an individual. This is the President. This distinguishes it from the actual Branch of Government: the Executive Branch.
I don't think this is splitting hairs because an understanding of the President's duties impacts any criticism. The President does not control Congress and more to the point, has no power over Judicial rulings. Thus the criticism seems misplaced.
And I don't think you have understood the thrust of my post. One of my central points has been that the president regularly responds to problems with the laws of the nation by playing a central role in the making of new laws. He just did this with the personal bankruptcy laws. I never said the president could or should control judicial rulings. It is his response to the rulings I am talking about, not the rulings themselves. And if you examine his response to the bankruptcy laws regarding individuals, and compare them to his response to the bankruptcy laws regarding corporations, you will see a clear dichotomy that illuminates his agenda.
You seem to admit the President cannot impact Judicial rulings. The key point seems to be his response: this then goes to my early post: "If the point is that the President should complain about the ruling even though he has no jurisdiction or impact on the issue, I'm not sure that really constitutes a deep insight into an agenda."
Let's just restate this and talk about the Republican agenda instead.
If you look at the bankruptcy bill that recently passed through Congress, you'll notice that the Republicans voted as a party both for the bill, and against a number of amendments that were proposed that would have eliminated loopholes that protect only the wealthy. Some Democrats crossed party lines and voted with the Republicans on various votes (because they're getting money from the same sources), but the Republicans were rock solidly in favor of this one.
A bill that was in process for eight years and passes the Senate 74 to 25 (which shows more than a few Democrats supporting) serves as an example of Republicans: "completely and wholeheartedly in favor of a system that denies middle class families in crisis bankruptcy protections.agenda." Hmmm. Reminds me of the evil empire screed. You really should learn to move beyond the demonization of the opposition penchant. Black helicopters, smoky backrooms and sinister laughter are not the basis for sound thinking.
The basic idea behind this bill was to make it easier for credit card companies to collect debt from people undergoing extreme financial hardships. Over half the bankruptcies in the United States are due to medical emergencies, with the rest overwhelmingly due to job loss and divorce.
The basic idea behind this bill was to make for more fiscal responsibility. Bankruptcy filing in the U.S. have been doubling every decade for the past three decades. There were over 1.6 million consumer bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2004. Yet in 1980, there were only 300,000 bankruptcies. The base reason is that an abundance of access to credit is not matched by personal responsibility. This goes back to the change in the system in the 1970's that shifted the burden and costs to others in the form of high interest rates. This legislation in addition to establishing means testing, requiring credit counseling and requiring proof of income will bring a reduction in interest rates. One of the reason interests rates are the level they are is to help alleviate the costs incurred because of dept default.
The notion that medical bankruptcies are a prime rational for filing is based on a flawed calculus. The study with the “50 percent” claim is based on a survey of debtors that sets the bar so low that any filer with medical bills exceeding $1,000 counts as a medical bankruptcy. It is a false and arbitrary standard. By this logic, anyone with a car payment over $100 a month who goes bankrupt would count as a “car bankruptcy.” Todd Zywicki, a law professor at George Mason University, has been tireless in defusing the “half truths, distortions, and fundamental misunderstandings” surrounding the bill, noting that it prevents, not encourages, abuse of homestead exemptions, and that it will fight deadbeat dads who use bankruptcy to avoid supporting their children. Moreover, even under Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, after 5 years of partial payments the filer is entitled to a full discharge of the unpaid balance. Hardly draconian.
Aside from asking the more basic question: why voluntary bankruptcy is even permitted, this revision will nonetheless help to refocus on basic financial responsibility.
KukriKhan
05-13-2005, 13:09
Side question: Since the increase in numbers of personal bankruptcies resulted in increased interest rates for consumer credit - with the passage of this legislation, how long before we see interest rates going down on consumer credit, since the creditors are at less risk?
Don Corleone
05-13-2005, 13:15
Heee hee heee :laugh: You funny guy, Kukri!
Gawain of Orkeny
05-13-2005, 15:27
This whole thing really cracks me up. Do you trally think that Bill Clinton supported welfare reform or the balanced budget amendment? Yet these are his two claims to fame. The guy vetoed the bills and now liberals and Clinton go around claiming credit for these things like it was their idea and it was they who got it passed. Again I dont think many have any idea as to how limited the presidents powers really are.
Now they would have you believe that those two events give us the Clinton agenda in a nutshell.
Hurin_Rules
05-13-2005, 17:13
Thanks Aurelian, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
So now, lets replace "Bush agenda" with "Republican agenda" and continue the discussion. This pretty much refutes all of the criticisms I have faced so far. Are the critics now going to try to refute the observation that the Republican responses to the discrepancy between the laws for personal vs. Corporate bankrupcty illuminate their agenda? I might also add it clearly reveals who pays their bills.
A bill that was in process for eight years and passes the Senate 74 to 25 (which shows more than a few Democrats supporting) serves as an example of Republicans: "completely and wholeheartedly in favor of a system that denies middle class families in crisis bankruptcy protections.agenda." Hmmm. Reminds me of the evil empire screed. You really should learn to move beyond the demonization of the opposition penchant. Black helicopters, smoky backrooms and sinister laughter are not the basis for sound thinking.
Interesting, considering your comment in post 29:
This does not mean I support corporate welfare. I see such as smacking of socialist effeminacy.
This just in: pot calls kettle black.
Thanks Aurelian, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
So now, lets replace "Bush agenda" with "Republican agenda" and continue the discussion.
That's better: always better to be accurate with one's criticisms.
This pretty much refutes all of the criticisms I have faced so far. Are the critics now going to try to refute the observation that the Republican responses to the discrepancy between the laws for personal vs. Corporate bankrupcty illuminate their agenda? I might also add it clearly reveals who pays their bills.
The difficulty here aside from the details of the actual bill is that support was bi-partisan. It passed the Senate by a wide margin. The opposition to financial responsibility pointing a finger solely at the GOP as the source of theirs ills seems odd.
Interesting, considering your comment in post 29:
Originally Posted by Pindar
This does not mean I support corporate welfare. I see such as smacking of socialist effeminacy.
This just in: pot calls kettle black.
Noting the failures of an ideology (assuming you take effeminacy as a bad thing) is not a personal attack. It does not call into question the integrity of any advocate. This should be clear.
Don Corleone
05-13-2005, 19:06
Last thing I have to say on this topic, and then Hurin, Aurilean, feel free to continue beating this dead horse.....
1) Congress could have (and in my opinion should have) restructured Chapter 11 bankruptcy laws. They didn't. I think that's pretty lousy and I think it seriously weakens the American economy for several different reasons, which I have already listed. As Pindar points out, this wasn't a 55/45 vote. Call your own people up and ask them what the hell they're doing 'passing the Republican agenda' as you put it.
2) I still maintain that a means test for chapter 7 seems fair. The criteria we're talking about here is that you have to be in the top median of the income distribution. How many people like that actually declare bankruptcy? And when they do, why SHOULD they be able to keep a timeshare in Barbados and a ski lodge in Vermont? Just because our corporate bankruptcy laws aren't stringent enough doesn't mean that every wealthy person without a conscience should be able to pawn their debts off on the system as a whole, as you apparently are advocating. What's more, I really don't appreciate you mixing your emotional appeals. You keep talking about poor people getting the shaft, but according to the means test you're so vehemently opposing, 'the poorest Americans' you're trying to gin up tears for are exempt! Or is your argument that even though you make more than half of your neighbors, you should be exempted from your debts?
Hurin_Rules
05-14-2005, 17:49
Noting the failures of an ideology (assuming you take effeminacy as a bad thing) is not a personal attack. It does not call into question the integrity of any advocate. This should be clear.
Lets review: this was Aurelian's comment that you characterized as a personal attack:
If you look at the bankruptcy bill that recently passed through Congress, you'll notice that the Republicans voted as a party both for the bill, and against a number of amendments that were proposed that would have eliminated loopholes that protect only the wealthy. Some Democrats crossed party lines and voted with the Republicans on various votes (because they're getting money from the same sources), but the Republicans were rock solidly in favor of this one.
I fail to see how this is a personal attack. Calling socialism effeminate seems to me much closer to ad hominem than that. Don't you think?
KafirChobee
05-14-2005, 18:34
Good post, Aurelian. Pointed out effectively, that both political partys have those owned by big business and it is pay back time. Is just that, ALL Republicans' must go along with the "agenda" or be sanctioned by their central committees (have their re-election funds slashed). The Democrats doing so are paying back their corporate contributors, as well.
Beyond that, the question of reducing interest rates on credit cards is a valid one. Curious that no provision was included on that. Then again, the credit card companys' did write the bill. The arguement of numbers, as in the increase of people filing for bankruptcy, can be directly attributed to the loss of real paying jobs (and wages as a whole), the increase in health care (and loss of previously required health care supplimeants for workers), and other contributing factors created to assist the wealthy and hinder the working classes. It is a fact, that the vast majority of bankruptcy filings were caused by health circumstances, and the failure of small businesses (once a main stay for the American Partys' - give everyone a shot at a bite from the apple). No more. Greed of the few - for the few, is the driving force here. Limiting the possability of upward mobility for all, seems to be one of those antiquated notions some Republicans talk about (like banning torture, or the Geneva Accords), and now hold dear to their new found religion (all worship Exxon, ENRON, etc). Gee, who would have thought we would hear a second President say, "The business of America, is business". Last one that said that, Coolidge, did so 2 years before the great depression. Why anyone would expect anything differently from Bush's people is beyond me, though.
Beyond, the new bankruptcy feasical - anyone with an honest perception of political reality must confess that the foxes are watching over the chicken coop (s). Just look at whom has been put in charge of the environmental agencies, oversight of the military committees, ethics committee (though they did backdown a bit there - they will simply find other ways to circumvent the laws), our legal system (the man that said the Geneva Convention was antiquated), etcetera. It is no exaggeration that the only individuals left with uncompromising rights - are corporations (all with offshore accounts to avoid paying their fair share of taxes - and blessed by congress).
Is it no wonder we have a +400Billion budget deficit? That is now considered a good thing by the same Republicans that screamed for Clinton to balance his?
:balloon2:
Lets review: this was Aurelian's comment that you characterized as a personal attack:
I fail to see how this is a personal attack. Calling socialism effeminate seems to me much closer to ad hominem than that. Don't you think?
Hurin,
What are you doing? You seemed to have picked the most tangential and unimportant part of the discussion to focus on. Why? If this is really important to you (despite the fact none of it was directed at you) then note the following:
First the comment you quoted is not what I responded to. Look a little closer: I referenced:
(The Republicans are) "completely and wholeheartedly in favor of a system that denies middle class families in crisis bankruptcy protections.agenda."
This is at the end of the piece and part of:
The Republicans are completely and wholeheartedly in favor of a system that denies middle class families in crisis bankruptcy protections... while they simultaneously make sure that the wealthy and business elites are covered.
The above is challenging the integrity of the Republicans lawmakers. My response included a note to another Aurelian thread where he saw the U.S. as an evil empire. So, my comment was directed at more than a single statement.
And no, "socialist effeminacy" does not question the integrity of any advocate. It does refer to the feminine character of socialism in general.
Now, I'm assuming that since the your reply had nothing to say on the original charge of the thread that there is nothing of substance left to be mined.
Hurin_Rules
05-14-2005, 21:05
Hurin,
What are you doing? You seemed to have picked the most tangential and unimportant part of the discussion to focus on. Why?
Sorry Pindar, but you've been doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of, and in fact you did it first. You've been hairsplitting on the difference between 'executive' and 'executive branch', for example, ignoring the more general point of the whole thread. If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones. If you're going to focus on the picayune, you can't very well get upset when people challenge you on those issues, can you?
Now, I'm assuming that since the your reply had nothing to say on the original charge of the thread that there is nothing of substance left to be mined.
Here we may agree, because nothing you have presented addresses the central point I made.
Sorry Pindar, but you've been doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of, and in fact you did it first. You've been hairsplitting on the difference between 'executive' and 'executive branch', for example, ignoring the more general point of the whole thread. If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones. If you're going to focus on the picayune, you can't very well get upset when people challenge you on those issues, can you?
If you do not understand the Office of the Executive as opposed to the Executive Branch you cannot properly level a critique. You condemn the President for something beyond his perview. Your criticism fails.
Hurin_Rules
05-14-2005, 21:16
If you do not understand the Office of the Executive as opposed to the Executive Branch you cannot properly level a critique. You condemn the President for something beyond his perview. Your criticism fails.
Hahaha, brilliant. Let me see if I can respond to this devastating critique:
If you can't understand that the president of the USA has a major voice in what laws get passed in the USA, then you cannot properly level a critique. YOUR criticism fails.
Whew, that took a lot of thought, but I think I managed to construct an argument just as thoughtful and compelling as your last one.
If you can't provide anything of substance and prefer to keep wallowing in tangential minutae while accusing me of doing the same, I don't really see much future for this discussion.
Hahaha, brilliant. Let me see if I can respond to this devastating critique:
If you can't understand that the president of the USA has a major voice in what laws get passed in the USA, then you cannot properly level a critique. YOUR criticism fails.
Whew, that took a lot of thought, but I think I managed to construct an argument just as thoughtful and compelling as your last one.
If you can't provide anything of substance and prefer to keep wallowing in tangential minutae while accusing me of doing the same, I don't really see much future for this discussion.
Your argumentative nature and emotion are confusing you. This has already been covered: The President has no control over Judicial rulings. Therefore to level a critique of the President based on a Judicial ruling is flawed. As far as Congressional action: the President has no direct control either. The President may influence some bill, but this is based on his perceived strength at the time. It has nothing to do with legal or systemic control. The bill in question predates the Bush Presidency by over three years. Bush is not its source. Given the Congress, the bill would have made its way to the Oval Office regardless of who was in the Office. Now Bush signed the bill, most probably because he agrees with it as did some 74 Senators and a large number of Representatives. But this doesn't play into your initial point which is tied to the Judicial ruling. This is why your criticism is flawed.
Hurin_Rules
05-14-2005, 22:26
Your argumentative nature and emotion are confusing you. This has already been covered: The President has no control over Judicial rulings. Therefore to level a critique of the President based on a Judicial ruling is flawed.
And again, I refer you to what I have repeatedly said, as I summarized in post #30 of this thread:
"And I don't think you have understood the thrust of my post... I never said the president could or should control judicial rulings. It is his repsonse to the rulings I am talking about, not the rulings themselves. And if you examine his response to the bankruptcy laws regarding individuals, and compare them to his response to the bankruptcy laws regarding corporations, you will see a clear dichotomy that illuminates his agenda."
We seem to be going round and round in circles on this. Perhaps your argumentative nature and emotion are confusing you?
PanzerJaeger
05-15-2005, 01:38
What, in your perfect world, would you have President Bush do about court rulings? Would you like him to try and usurp the power of the courts? Would you like him to complain about the decision even though he can do nothing about it? He has only a limited time, usually a 60 minute sound bite, to influence the American public on any given day. He most likely has more pressing issues to deal with than one that he cannot do anything about.
Hurin_Rules
05-15-2005, 20:29
I'd like him to address the loopholes in corporate bankruptcy laws with as much vigour that he addressed the loopholes in personal bankruptcy laws. I'm not asking for Schiavo-style internvention here; just an acknowledgment that its something that should be looked at, at the same time that he's clamping down on the laws for individuals.
Hurin_Rules
05-15-2005, 20:32
Hey Pindar, check this thread out:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=47730
At least we're entertaining someone ~;)
Edit: I see now that Adrian II has composed an Ode to you there as well; fitting, given your moniker. ~:)
PanzerJaeger
05-15-2005, 22:07
I'd like him to address the loopholes in corporate bankruptcy laws with as much vigour that he addressed the loopholes in personal bankruptcy laws. I'm not asking for Schiavo-style internvention here; just an acknowledgment that its something that should be looked at, at the same time that he's clamping down on the laws for individuals.
So all that would make you happy is if he mentioned it? All this for something that will mean nothing?
Hurin_Rules
05-15-2005, 22:44
So all that would make you happy is if he mentioned it? All this for something that will mean nothing?
It won't mean nothing if he does something about closing bankruptcy loopholes for corporations. If the president makes it a priority, at least there will be a public debate about it and something might get done to make the laws for corporations as stringent as those for individuals. But to answer your questions, yes, I would be happy if he at least mentioned it. I know it would be an uphill fight-- there are a lot of politicians, democrats as well as republicans, who take way too much money from big business-- but it would indicate to me that his agenda is not a purely corporate, pro-big business, screw-the-poor approach.
And again, I refer you to what I have repeatedly said, as I summarized in post #30 of this thread:
"And I don't think you have understood the thrust of my post... I never said the president could or should control judicial rulings. It is his repsonse to the rulings I am talking about, not the rulings themselves. And if you examine his response to the bankruptcy laws regarding individuals, and compare them to his response to the bankruptcy laws regarding corporations, you will see a clear dichotomy that illuminates his agenda."
We seem to be going round and round in circles on this. Perhaps your argumentative nature and emotion are confusing you?
Yes, this plays into where I anticipated you might be going in the post #5 where basically if you recognize the President has no authority over Judicial rulings then all that is left is you basically want him to complain.
Now you say here:
I'd like him to address the loopholes in corporate bankruptcy laws with as much vigour that he addressed the loopholes in personal bankruptcy laws. I'm not asking for Schiavo-style internvention here; just an acknowledgment that its something that should be looked at, at the same time that he's clamping down on the laws for individuals.
The problem is the bankruptcy bill was legislative and thus subject to action one way or the other, while the United decision was an overturning of an obligation within an already existent law. The Judge excused Untied's obligations to pensions. This may have been because if United actually went belly up these would be lost anyway, along with all employees salaries, those with stock options etc. I don't know. Whether one agrees with the ruling or not: it was change in the obligations of standing law and thus outside of the other branches of government there is nothing to be looked at outside the Judicial sphere.
Hey Pindar, check this thread out:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=47730
At least we're entertaining someone ~;)
Edit: I see now that Adrian II has composed an Ode to you there as well; fitting, given your moniker. ~:)
That's funny. ~:cheers:
Aurelian
05-17-2005, 09:19
1) Congress could have (and in my opinion should have) restructured Chapter 11 bankruptcy laws. They didn't. I think that's pretty lousy and I think it seriously weakens the American economy for several different reasons, which I have already listed. As Pindar points out, this wasn't a 55/45 vote. Call your own people up and ask them what the hell they're doing 'passing the Republican agenda' as you put it.
Actually, I did. When the Republican leadership was looking for votes to cut off Senate debate on the bill, I was none too happy to find out that Senator Debbie Stabenow from Michigan (D) had crossed party lines and was voting with the majority. Stabenow's family used to be neighbors of ours when I was growing up, she's good on most issues, and I even volunteered on a couple of her campaigns. I called her office immediately and gave a couple of her (very sheepish and glum) staffers a really hard time on the issue. Hopefully, at least some of the negative feedback got back to her.
Those Democrats who voted 'yea' on the bankruptcy bill were primarily those whose states are headquarters for the commercial finance industry. MBNA is big mojo in Delaware, so Biden voted 'yea'. Senator Clinton from New York abstained. In Stabenow's case, Ford and GM were undoubtedly pushing her on the issue. Both companies have huge consumer credit departments and were big supporters of the bill. Happily, Michigan's other Senator, Carl Levin, voted against the bill.
Despite some Democratic support, the bankruptcy bill was very much a product of the Republican agenda. The bill was created and shepherded by a Republican dominated legislature, was previously vetoed by President Clinton, and could only be passed now when the Republican party holds control of both houses. All the Republicans voted for it. Unanimously. They also went out of their way to shut down debate on the bill and to shoot down Democratic party amendments that would have given protections for victims of fraud, the elderly, and veterans... and would also have eliminated the prime loophole that lets the top 1% hide their assets from bankruptcy proceedings.
2) I still maintain that a means test for chapter 7 seems fair. The criteria we're talking about here is that you have to be in the top median of the income distribution. How many people like that actually declare bankruptcy? And when they do, why SHOULD they be able to keep a timeshare in Barbados and a ski lodge in Vermont? Just because our corporate bankruptcy laws aren't stringent enough doesn't mean that every wealthy person without a conscience should be able to pawn their debts off on the system as a whole, as you apparently are advocating. What's more, I really don't appreciate you mixing your emotional appeals. You keep talking about poor people getting the shaft, but according to the means test you're so vehemently opposing, 'the poorest Americans' you're trying to gin up tears for are exempt! Or is your argument that even though you make more than half of your neighbors, you should be exempted from your debts?
Actually, I never mentioned the poorest Americans. I was talking about hard working middle class Americans who run into financial difficulties through medical bills, divorce, or job loss. A person who earns just slightly more than the median income will be in worse shape than someone who earns just slightly less (a rather arbitrary and unfair distinction).
What I'm saying is actually fairly close to what you are arguing. One of the reasons that I'm mad about the bankruptcy bill is that it deliberately leaves a massive loophole open so that the wealthiest Americans can protect their assets from bankruptcy... while simultaneously making bankruptcy much harder for the middle class.
Aurelian
05-18-2005, 06:49
A bill that was in process for eight years and passes the Senate 74 to 25 (which shows more than a few Democrats supporting) serves as an example of Republicans: "completely and wholeheartedly in favor of a system that denies middle class families in crisis bankruptcy protections.agenda." Hmmm. Reminds me of the evil empire screed. You really should learn to move beyond the demonization of the opposition penchant. Black helicopters, smoky backrooms and sinister laughter are not the basis for sound thinking.
Well, isn't that special.
I might add that constructing strawmen, talking about 'screeds', and implying conspiracy theories is hardly the basis for sound argumentation.
The basic idea behind this bill was to make for more fiscal responsibility. Bankruptcy filing in the U.S. have been doubling every decade for the past three decades. There were over 1.6 million consumer bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2004. Yet in 1980, there were only 300,000 bankruptcies. The base reason is that an abundance of access to credit is not matched by personal responsibility. This goes back to the change in the system in the 1970's that shifted the burden and costs to others in the form of high interest rates. This legislation in addition to establishing means testing, requiring credit counseling and requiring proof of income will bring a reduction in interest rates. One of the reason interests rates are the level they are is to help alleviate the costs incurred because of dept default.
Now that's funny. The United States legislature is passing a bill to encourage 'fiscal responsibility'... while it simultaneously runs up outrageous deficits, cuts the tax rates, and does things like give massive 'no bid' contracts to companies like Halliburton. "Borrow and Spend" is, after all, the new Republican philosophy. When Congress passed the bankruptcy bill, I can assure you that the last thing on their minds was their great moral concern over fiscal responsibility. They were concerned about servicing the consumer credit companies that provide them with campaign funds. In that sense, the Republican-led legislature did want to encourage 'fiscal responsibility'... so that those industries can maximize their profits.
As for the high interest rates charged to borrowers, that is a result of deregulation beginning in 1979. In 1979, there were usury laws on the books that regulated the maximal rates of interest that lenders could charge. However, the economic environment 25 years ago did not encourage lending at those rates. The country was faced with high inflation, a recession, and mounting interest rates. Usury laws discouraged lending because lenders could not charge enough to offset the cost of money (the interest rate) and the depreciation that comes from inflation.
It was in this environment that Governor Bill Janklow of South Dakota made the decision to eliminate his state's usury laws and turn South Dakota into a haven for the credit card industry. He was able to do this because the US Supreme Court's "Marquette Bank" decision had ruled that the laws that governed the interest rate that could be charged to a borrower were not the laws of the state where the bank was chartered, but were rather the laws of the state where the decision to extend credit was made. As a result, the consumer credit industry moved their operations to South Dakota (and later also Delaware), so they could take advantage of the lack of usury laws in those states to charge unlimited interest rates nationwide.
The bankruptcy bill will have no appreciable affect on the interest rates lenders charge because those lenders have no reason to lower their current rates. Interest rates of 20-25% might have made sense in the high inflation/high interest rate environment of 1979, but in today's low inflation/low interest rate environment they haven't come down. The credit card industry made $30 billion in profits last year, and their business wasn't exactly failing under the old bankruptcy laws.
Today's consumer credit industry is predatory, and it makes most of its money by charging late fees, and by inserting terms in the fine-print of their contracts that lets them hike your interest rate if you're late with a payment. The industry has also come under fire of late for trying to trick its customers into late payment by mailing out statements closer and closer to the due-date, by changing the due-date, and other fun tricks.
The great weakness of the bankruptcy bill, and why it lacks any real moral content, is that it approaches debt purely as the fault of the debtor without addressing the role played in America's indebtedness by the marketing strategies, business practices, and unregulated interest rates of the credit card companies. I would be all in favor of a bill that made reasonable provisions for repayment, and helped eliminate bankruptcy abuses, as long as it also confronted the business behavior of the credit card companies and eliminated the loophole provisions that protect the wealthiest Americans.
The notion that medical bankruptcies are a prime rational for filing is based on a flawed calculus. The study with the “50 percent” claim is based on a survey of debtors that sets the bar so low that any filer with medical bills exceeding $1,000 counts as a medical bankruptcy. It is a false and arbitrary standard. By this logic, anyone with a car payment over $100 a month who goes bankrupt would count as a “car bankruptcy.”
Not so. Here's a LINK (http://http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1) to the study in question. While a lower limit of $1,000 of uncovered expenses might seem a low bar to considering a bankruptcy 'medical', the average out of pocket expenses in the category were $11,584 since the start of illness. In addition, the study shows that medical bankruptcies also often include time lost from work and being dropped from an insurance policy. The average American family is not so well-insulated against financial disaster that they can cover lost wages, medical bills, and other obligations in the face of insistent creditors. The study notes that there has been a 23-fold increase in the number of people filing bankruptcy after a medical emergency since 1981.
I might add that constructing strawmen... and implying conspiracy theories is hardly the basis for sound argumentation.
Good we are agreed. All the Party conspiracies ideas can be rightly disregarded for the drivel they are.
Hurin_Rules
05-19-2005, 17:26
Good we are agreed. All the Party conspiracies ideas can be rightly disregarded for the drivel they are.
And your response to the rest of his two long, informative posts that contradict your arguments is?
And your response to the rest of his two long, informative posts that contradict your arguments is?
I didn't note anything that contradicts my basic point.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.