Two events give us the Bush agenda in a nutshell

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":

Quote:

---

"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

---

Sen. Schumer (D) proposed an amendment that would have eliminated this massive loophole for the wealthy... and every Republican voted against it.

Go here 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

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.

Quote:

---

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurelian

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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?

Heee hee heee :laugh: You funny guy, Kukri!

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Interesting, considering your comment in post 29:

Quote:

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurelian

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?

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

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:

Quote:

---

(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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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?

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.

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.

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. ~:)

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aurelian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

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.