Banned
|
Bankruptcy Reform: Are Bush & Republican Legislators "Betraying" Their Constituents ?
This is the "politics" forum.........yet I have not seen this, one of the most far reaching acts that the Bush led, Republican majority have pulled off in favor of business lobbyists, and to the expense and the detriment of the American people and to
the national economy, receive much attention. Democrats successfully prevented this from happening for the last eight years, and now....it will happen !
<b>
I watch this forum with amazement as "issues', like the "Smoking Ban" thread garner over 200 messages, and over 1600 views, and that "Wearing your Pants Low" thread (or whatever the "F" it was called),and the thread about the girl who wore the confederate flag dress, just kept on distracting posters and lurkers here, from more important issues. I realize that many members here are young, but c'mon, these are serious times, and this is an alarmingly serious issue:</b>
1.) Almost all Republicans and some Democrats bought off by the credit industry are about to sell out most middle class and poorer Americans, disproportionately located in red states where there are the highest chapter 7 bankruptcy filing rates per total households.
2.) After the bill passes and Bush signs it, there will be a six month window for those who want to take advantage of current chapter 7 filing rules, to declare bankruptcy and to then discharge most, or all of their debts. This will trigger filings that might not have taken place, otherwise.
3.) Once this bill takes effect, a whole new class of bankruptcy filers will be created who will be chronically burdened with debt that would have been discharged under the old rules. No one knows how many of these folks will be prevented from making a new start as consumers, and this will have the severest economic effects on the already poorest areas of the country, primarily in areas that voted for Bush!
4.) The wealthy (those who carry no credit card balances from month to month, because they pay the total bill off monthly),
were never affected by the higher interest rates and fees that credit card companies claim to have to levy because of losses cause by "excessive" chapter 7 filings. Attempts to prohibit interest rates above 30 percent were blocked from the new bill. There is no guarantee that the bill will influence credit card providers to lower the rates that they charge to borrowers.
5.) Although this is primarily a Republican move against the debtor class, prominent Democrats such as senators Biden (bought off by his state's banking giant MBNA), and John Kerry have also sold out to the corporate contributors. (Clinton refused to sign a similar version of this bill into law when the Republican congress passed a similar version during his second term.
I think that I've documented this "sell out" fairly thoroughly,
and I hope that if you come here to post a defense of the bill, you will provide evidence that it is fair, necessary, and is in the best interests of the majority of the constituents represented by those who sponsored, voted for, and signed it into law.
Does it really "protect the consumer" as it's title describes?
Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.
What could legislators from "high chapter 7 filer" states be thinking when they vote for this? Is Hatch representing Utah better than Kennedy and Dodd represent their New England
states in this matter?
Quote:
<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/careerprof.asp">http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/careerprof.asp</a>
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- March 8, 2005
CONTACT: STEVEN WEISS (202/857-0044 or editor@capitaleye.org)
'CAREER PROFILES' SHOW LAWMAKERS'
16-YEAR FUNDRAISING TOTALS
Among the interests lobbying in support of the bankruptcy bill currently before the Senate is the credit industry, which has contributed more than $40 million to federal candidates and political parties since 1989. But the senators who have raised the most campaign money from credit card companies during that time do not include Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), the majority leader, or Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the bill's sponsor.
That distinction belongs to Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who has raised $316,700 from the credit industry over the past 16 years, tops among current senators. Virtually all of that -- $300,700 -- has come from the employees and political action committee of MBNA, the nation's top credit card issuer. Snowe is fourth on the list when all current and past members of Congress are ranked.................
|
Quote:
<a href="http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050309/ZNYT01/503090399/1001/BUSINESS">http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050309/ZNYT01/503090399/1001/BUSINESS</a>
In a letter to Congress two weeks ago, 104 bankruptcy law professors predicted that "the deepest hardship" would "be felt in the heartland," where the filing rates are highest - Utah, Tennessee, Georgia, Nevada, Indiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Ohio, Mississippi and Idaho.
|
Quote:
<a href="http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0310talton10.html">http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0310talton10.html</a>
The new measure will make it more difficult for debtors to file under Chapter 7, which allows for a fresh start. Instead, more people would be forced to use Chapter 13, with the bankruptcy court overseeing a five-year repayment. Unfortunately, the new law does nothing to address the aggressive marketing of credit. It also contains a loophole for wealthy debtors to shield expensive assets from the bankruptcy court. Yet another exception allows the rich to set up a trust that is protected from creditors.
<b>
Average Americans will not see such sweetheart treatment. Will they care? Polls show that middle-class Whites supported President Bush over John Kerry on the economy by a wide margin. Yet Bush's agenda is based on shifting more risk and greater costs to average Americans, while lowering regulation on business and cutting taxes for the extremely wealthy.</b>
Arizonans, with below-average incomes, declining numbers of jobs with health benefits, and high debt, will feel the consequences quickly. And debt collection, the ultimate countercyclical sector, will go on.
|
Quote:
<a href="http://washingtontimes.com/business/20050309-094632-2191r.htm">http://washingtontimes.com/business/20050309-094632-2191r.htm</a>Senate rejects bankruptcy amendments
From combined dispatches
Efforts to soften the effect of tougher bankruptcy rules on families with children and close a loophole for the wealthy were rejected by the Senate yesterday as the legislation moved toward expected passage.
A final vote on the measure, making it more difficult for consumers to erase their debts in bankruptcy court, was expected to wait until today as debate continued on amendments.
Banks, credit-card companies and retailers have sought the changes for years, arguing that bankruptcy has become too easy. The measure is also favored by the White House.
Critics charge the measure is too harsh and rewards lenders who have encouraged consumers to take on higher debt burdens.
The legislation contains a means test that would force more filers to enter compulsory repayment plans, rather than having their assets liquidated to repay creditors.
With Senate approval virtually assured after the bill cleared two key hurdles on Tuesday, backers yesterday rejected proposals to ease the impact of the legislation on families with children, young people below age 21 and people with below-median incomes.
<b>They also rejected a proposal by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, to close a loophole that benefits wealthier people in states with unlimited homestead exemptions, such as Texas and Florida.
His amendment would have capped the amount allowed for homestead exemptions at $300,000. It was rejected 53-47</b>.
Senate backers of the bill said they were trying to avoid amendments because House leaders have pledged to act promptly if the Senate does not make major changes. House leaders hope to vote early next month on the bill and send it to President Bush for signing into law.
<b>But Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, said the bill puts a straitjacket on families with children.
"Clearly, there is a need to reform the bankruptcy laws. But it requires a sense of balance," he said.</b>
His amendment would have made the means test more flexible to help families with children, by allowing larger education payments and ensuring that child-support payments are not diverted to creditors. It was rejected 58-42.
Senators also rejected 60-40 a proposal by Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, to ask judges to consider if a person under age 21 has been issued at least seven credit cards. Mrs. Boxer said credit-card companies were acting irresponsibly, "enticing" young people into debt.
Critics say the bill hurts people burdened with medical debt or who have lost their jobs.
"It makes it harder to get a fresh start," said Maureen Thompson, executive director of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. "Most people file for bankruptcy only when they have no other options. Most often, they have tried to pay back that debt."
Others say innocent people will suffer because of the credit abuses of a few.
"The overall concern is that this bill takes a sort of 'scorched earth' approach to bankruptcy reform," said Travis Plunkett, legislative director of the Consumer Federation of America, a consumer-advocacy group. "There are some so-called 'abusers' of the system. The dispute is whether this bill is a proportional response to the problem."
<b>A recent Harvard University study found that costly illnesses led to about half of all personal bankruptcies.</b>
The bill's main sponsor, Iowa Republican Sen. Charles E. Grassley, insisted the measure was fair and necessary, saying there had been an "explosion" in bankruptcy filings.
"It's become an economic problem where the average person in America is paying $550 for goods and services because somebody else didn't pay their bills," Sen. Grassley said.
• Tom Ramstack contributed to this report.
|
Orrin Hatch appears to be selling out his own constituents even as kennedy, who represents a state with constituents who have much less to lose if this bill passes, continues the eight year fight against it !
Quote:
<a href="http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2594332">http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2594332</a>
Hatch, Kennedy at odds on bankruptcy bill
Friends debate: The Utah senator favors a means test for filers; his Massachusetts opponent is opposed
By Christopher Smith
The Salt Lake Tribune
WASHINGTON - A bill to toughen federal bankruptcy laws has pitted Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah with personal friend and political nemesis, Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, in a series of verbal battles this week.
Hatch is one of the leaders of the Republican effort to enact a "means test" and make it harder for individuals to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection from creditors. The test would determine if filers have the financial ability to repay some of their debts, rather than erasing outstanding bills upon forfeiture of some of their assets.
If filers are deemed financially capable of paying back some of their debt under the new means test, they would not get the "fresh start" provided by Chapter 7 and would instead be pushed into Chapter 13 bankruptcy and a court-administered repayment plan.,b>
The bill could have wide-ranging impacts on residents of Utah, where bankruptcy filings per household lead the nation. In the fiscal year that ended in June, 21,312 Utah residents filed for bankruptcy, with a majority of 14,747 seeking Chapter 7 protection.</b>
|
And....here's the quote that those who simply want to "shoot the messenger", <br>and then pass that off as a substantative response to the newest theft directed at "the least of us" by the government/corporate/high-net-worth establishment, can use......to avoid actually trying to defend this act on it's merits, because it in indefensible.
Quote:
<a href="http://www.opednews.com/wade_031005_mcmedia.htm">http://www.opednews.com/wade_031005_mcmedia.htm</a>
You Want Lies With That?<b>Just an Average Week in Bush’s America, Protections for the Rich, Police States for the Poor and McMedia for All</b>
By Anthony Wade
March 10, 2005
www.OpEdNews.com
.........This week however, we saw the crystallization of the rich get richer under Bush with the passing of the new bankruptcy laws. It has always been allowed in this country for people to eradicate poor financial mistakes and start over. Second chances one would say have been uniquely American, as opposed to Bush who thinks working three jobs is uniquely American. There is always a punishment, in that the person would need at least ten years to rebuild their credit rating back to the point of being acceptable. The credit card companies never really suffered as these conditions are what lead the companies to charge outrageous financing fees. Not content with this though, the credit card companies have lobbied Congress to stick it to the American people by making it far more difficult for people to declare bankruptcy.
This past week saw attempts by democratic senators to amend this egregious law to protect:
The elderly – an amendment would have shielded the elderly from losing their home, only up to $75,000 in value. Often it is medical problems and limited income that leaves the elderly with no option but bankruptcy.
The sick – an amendment would have protected people from these new standards if the bankruptcy was a direct result of a catastrophic illness.
Veterans – an amendment would have protected our returning soldiers from Afghanistan and Iraq who so often face financial hardship upon their return.
Do these sound fair to you? Well, not in George W. Bush’s America. All three amendments were defeated. Not even victims of identity theft would be exempt from these new laws. Here though, is what makes this week’s actions take shape as being pure Bush, Congress refused to close loopholes in this law designed to protect millionaires.
Did you get that America? Your Congress is passing a law to hold you accountable for debt, but in the same law have set up “asset protection trusts” for the filthy rich. Another amendment was introduced this week that would have reduced these trusts to $125,000 or less and you guessed it, it was defeated. This is what led NY Senator Chuck Schumer to regret, “now we have a bill that says a family won't be protected if it has $50,000, but it will if it has $5 million." THAT, is life under George W. Bush................
|
|