Bankruptcy laws amended. And the big winner is????

IMO ... no. But I don't bemoan any attempt to make it more difficult to achieve personal bankruptcy, or to require greater levels of personal responsibility. It's too damn easy to file bankruptcy and divorce in this country.

I think he's talking about international debt forgiveness of Iraq's national debt.

If this is the same law they've been pushing for years, I believe it also gives credit card collectors priority over child support payments. Meaning the banks get the money before the kids do.

FreeDuck wrote:

I think he's talking about international debt forgiveness of Iraq's national debt.

If this is the same law they've been pushing for years, I believe it also gives credit card collectors priority over child support payments. Meaning the banks get the money before the kids do.

I would be very surprised to find this to be true. Child support and taxes will probably continue to be exempt from protection.

"A vast majority of personal bankruptcies in the United States are the result of severe misfortune. One recent study found that more than half of bankruptcies are the result of medical emergencies. The rest are overwhelmingly the result either of job loss or of divorce.

One increasingly popular loophole is the creation of an "asset protection trust," which is worth doing only for the wealthy. Senator Charles Schumer introduced an amendment that would have limited the exemption on such trusts, but apparently it's O.K. to game the system if you're rich: 54 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted against the Schumer amendment.

Other amendments were aimed at protecting families and individuals who have clearly been forced into bankruptcy by events, or who would face extreme hardship in repaying debts. Ted Kennedy introduced an exemption for cases of medical bankruptcy. Russ Feingold introduced an amendment protecting the homes of the elderly. Dick Durbin asked for protection for armed services members and veterans. All were rejected."


Now, who can tell me How Tico's phony story about his alleged bout with bankruptcy has anything to do with the issues this article has raised?

Answer: Nobody. It doesn't.

Kicky,

Tico doesn't want to address the issue of the fact that so many bankruptcies are caused by medical bills; because that would ruin his 'personal responsibility' argument right away.

Cycloptichorn

Tico, seriously, what about the stuff in the three paragraphs that I quoted? That is what the article is really about, and I notice that you still haven't said anything remotely related to any of it.

It would be kind of like if a bill came along called the "Stop unwanted pregnancy bill", and you came along and said, "unwanted pregnancies are bad. Yeah, I'm all for this bill", ignoring the fact that in the bill they advocate sterilizing everyone under 21 years of age.

Why don't you answer my question about the fairness of these folks waltzing into bankruptcy court and declaring the debt they owed me to be liquidated? Is that fair? Somebody make the case for me that it is fair for these folks to unilaterally discharge the debts they owed me? Cyclops or Kicky, you two are championing these shirkers.... please explain to me why it is the right thing to do to allow them to take money from my children's mouths?

Is that fair? Somebody make the case for me that it is fair for these folks to unilaterally discharge the debts they owed me? Cyclops or Kicky, you two are championing these shirkers.... please explain to me why it is the right thing to do to allow them to take food from my children's mouths?

Ticomaya wrote:

Why don't you answer my question about the fairness of these folks waltzing into bankruptcy court and declaring the debt they owed me to be liquidated? Is that fair? Somebody make the case for me that it is fair for these folks to unilaterally discharge the debts they owed me? Cyclops or Kicky, you two are championing these shirkers.... please explain to me why it is the right thing to do to allow them to take money from my children's mouths?

First, it's not unilateral, it's done through the courts. Second, bankruptcy is not easy. Try living for 7 years with no credit and you'll see what I mean. Third, it may not seem fair to you, but what is the alternative? Is it fair to charge those with less credit history a higher interest rate? I'm sure the credit card companies think it is, but I assure you their customers don't. Is it fair that the legal system is so complex and convoluted that people need a lawyer just to wipe their ass with legal sized copy paper? No, it isn't. But that's life.

I'm not arguing the credit card companies case. I'm arguing mine. You say "it may not seem fair to you, but what is the alternative"? I note that you are not saying it is fair. The alternative, as I see it, is they pay me the debt they owe me. I didn't force them to have a debt with me. That was their choice. The only thing that could possibly be my "fault" is not requiring cash up front (which I assure you I started doing after getting burned a few times).

You say "it may not seem fair to you, but what is the alternative"? I note that you are not saying it is fair. The alternative, as I see it, is they pay me the debt they owe me. I didn't force them to have a debt with me. That was their choice. The only thing that could possibly be my "fault" is not requiring cash up front (which I assure you I started doing after getting burned a few times).

Quote:

Is that fair? Somebody make the case for me that it is fair for these folks to unilaterally discharge the debts they owed me? Cyclops or Kicky, you two are championing these shirkers.... please explain to me why it is the right thing to do to allow them to take food from my children's mouths?

What do you mean, is it the right thing to do? When folks can't pay their bills due to emergencies/medical expenses, then they shouldn't be unable to declare bankruptcy. I don't know if the folks who couldn't pay you were in a tough situation of if they just didn't want to pay. How can you ask me if it's fair or not?

If you mean 'is it fair for bankruptcy to exist,' then yes, it is fair. Bankruptcy is no joke. It's not as if you aren't affected by filing for it.

And to say 'taking food out of my kids mouths' is somewhat disingenuous, as I highly doubt your kids went hungry for a minute; just as the credit card agencies certainly weren't hurting from bankruptcy either.

Whereas the people who owed you could have lost their house, their car, their business, a family member, any sort of problems. Yes, there need to be laws in order to give people debt relief. Do you disagree with this? Given that so much debt is caused by medical reasons (which CANNOT be planned for, in many cases)

It's the same boondoggle being pulled by those who claim that tort cases cause medical insurance to go up... it simply isn't true...

Cycloptichorn

kickycan wrote:

Tico, seriously, what about the stuff in the three paragraphs that I quoted? That is what the article is really about, and I notice that you still haven't said anything remotely related to any of it.

It would be kind of like if a bill came along called the "Stop unwanted pregnancy bill", and you came along and said, "unwanted pregnancies are bad. Yeah, I'm all for this bill", ignoring the fact that in the bill they advocate sterilizing everyone under 21 years of age.

I appreciate you think the 3 paragraphs you quoted is what Krugman's editorial is "really about," but what it's really about is the bankruptcy law that's been advanced by the Senate. This is a law that curtails individuals from liquidating their debts completely through Chapter 7 filings. My concern about how easy it is for debtors to "wipe the slate clean" and the impact that has on the "creditors" is germane. Bankruptcy will still be available to folks ... it just won't be as easy.

Why don't you answer my question about the fairness of these folks waltzing into bankruptcy court and declaring the debt they owed me to be liquidated? Is that fair? Somebody make the case for me that it is fair for these folks to unilaterally discharge the debts they owed me? Cyclops or Kicky, you two are championing these shirkers.... please explain to me why it is the right thing to do to allow them to take food from my children's mouths?

If all they need to do is claim bankruptcy and that's it, then what are the hearings for?

Ticomaya wrote:

kickycan wrote:

Tico, seriously, what about the stuff in the three paragraphs that I quoted? That is what the article is really about, and I notice that you still haven't said anything remotely related to any of it.

It would be kind of like if a bill came along called the "Stop unwanted pregnancy bill", and you came along and said, "unwanted pregnancies are bad. Yeah, I'm all for this bill", ignoring the fact that in the bill they advocate sterilizing everyone under 21 years of age.

I appreciate you think the 3 paragraphs you quoted is what Krugman's editorial is "really about," but what it's really about is the bankruptcy law that's been advanced by the Senate. This is a law that curtails individuals from liquidating their debts completely through Chapter 7 filings. My concern about how easy it is for debtors to "wipe the slate clean" and the impact that has on the "creditors" is germane. Bankruptcy will still be available to folks ... it just won't be as easy.

Why don't you answer my question about the fairness of these folks waltzing into bankruptcy court and declaring the debt they owed me to be liquidated? Is that fair? Somebody make the case for me that it is fair for these folks to unilaterally discharge the debts they owed me? Cyclops or Kicky, you two are championing these shirkers.... please explain to me why it is the right thing to do to allow them to take food from my children's mouths?

Ridiculous diversionary tactics. Enjoy your "debate".