2
   

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

 
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 07:33 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
The BIG winner is - PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR ONES ACTIONS.

Don't blame the credit card company for your spending problems. About time people take responsibility for their actions.


Sigh. Where to begin arguing against this?

Do you believe the Iraqi people are responsible for their own actions?

Cycloptichorn


What does THAT have to do with bankruptcy? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 08:40 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
But I assure you, I applaud changes to the system that will make it more difficult for persons to take personal bankruptcy and avoid payment of their debts.


.... so that I can feel more secure giving people credit up front, knowing that I'll get them sooner or later on the back end, no matter how bad things get for them.... Right.


WTF? I didn't charge interest. I'm talking about getting paid the sum of money I'm due - no more ... no less. Since you don't know what the hell you're talking about, I suggest you keep your mouth shut.

squinney wrote:
I started on page one and was immediatly struck by Tico's argument for personal responsibility. Thankfully, Joe made my point more eliquently than I could have. Tico, you were whining and complaining. You need to buck up and take responsibility for your actions.


"Struck"? ... obviously in the sense that you don't think people should be responsible for their actions. You, like Joe, suffer from a reading comprehension problem: I wasn't whining and complaining ... I was explaining my reasoning for applauding the change to the law. I was trying to demonstrate the effect of bankruptcies on those who are not "evil" CC companies.

And it is pathetic to hear you people try and tell me I need to take responsibility, when it is clearly the slackards who take bankruptcy who need to. Truly pathetic. It's one of the things about liberalism that just makes my skin crawl.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 10:42 am
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
The BIG winner is - PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR ONES ACTIONS.

Don't blame the credit card company for your spending problems. About time people take responsibility for their actions.


Sigh. Where to begin arguing against this?

Do you believe the Iraqi people are responsible for their own actions?

Cycloptichorn


What does THAT have to do with bankruptcy? Rolling Eyes


It was in relation to being in debt, personal responsibility, and in response to Tico's scenario, woiyo...

Follow the thread...
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 10:45 am
How is it in response to my scenario?

The answer, woiyo, is it has nothing to do with bankruptcy.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 10:46 am
It had a lot to do with debt forgiveness, which is essentially what bankruptcy provides and what Tico clearly has a problem with.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 10:49 am
"Forgiveness" is a word often lost on neocons...

Which would explain alot.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 10:54 am
Quote:
WTF? I didn't charge interest. I'm talking about getting paid the sum of money I'm due - no more ... no less. Since you don't know what the hell you're talking about, I suggest you keep your mouth shut.


Touched a nerve, eh?

I never meant to say that you'd charge interest. I never said that you'd charge interest. Just that you'd be more willing to extend credit knowing that people can't dodge your bill by declaring bankruptcy. This allows you to increase business b/c you can now extend credit to people who are a worse risk (or per your earlier statements, extend credit at all). It doesn't matter to you what situation the other person is in; just that you get your money for the services provided.

It's the same story over and over again with you people; nothing matters as much as money, in the end.

BTW, you can keep your suggestions to yourself, as I'll talk about whatever I damn well please, Tico.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 11:04 am
Ticomaya wrote:
"Struck"? ... obviously in the sense that you don't think people should be responsible for their actions. You, like Joe, suffer from a reading comprehension problem: I wasn't whining and complaining ... I was explaining my reasoning for applauding the change to the law. I was trying to demonstrate the effect of bankruptcies on those who are not "evil" CC companies.

Oh no, Tico, you weren't whining and complaining. I'm sure you were merely pointing out, in an objective, academic fashion, how "unfair" it was that someone got out of a debt to you by declaring bankruptcy and how they were thereby taking "food from your children's mouths."

Ticomaya wrote:
And it is pathetic to hear you people try and tell me I need to take responsibility, when it is clearly the slackards who take bankruptcy who need to. Truly pathetic. It's one of the things about liberalism that just makes my skin crawl.

The people who declare bankruptcy need to be responsible for their actions, just as creditors need to be responsible for theirs. I haven't seen anyone in this thread argue against debtors being responsible. On the other hand, I have seen at least one poster argue against creditors being responsible.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 11:06 am
Senate Delays Action on Bankruptcy



Bipartisan Amendment Would Limit Advice By Investment Banks

By Kathleen Day
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 10, 2005; Page E01



A bill that would produce the biggest change in federal bankruptcy laws in more than 25 years hit a snag last night just as it appeared to be about to pass.

Senate leaders decided to postpone until today the final vote on the measure, which would make it more difficult for individuals to wipe out debt through bankruptcy. The decision was prompted in part by an amendment proposed by Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.), John W. Warner (R-Va.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) that would prohibit an investment bank that advises a company before it files for bankruptcy from continuing to advise it after the company is in bankruptcy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21147-2005Mar9.html?referrer=email
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 11:12 am
FreeDuck wrote:
It had a lot to do with debt forgiveness, which is essentially what bankruptcy provides and what Tico clearly has a problem with.


Now, wait just a minute. "Debt forgiveness" sounds a like the creditor making a decision to forgive debt, interest, or both. Bankruptcy is a unilateral decision by the debtor. Un huh, confirmed by federal bankruptcy court, but still the debtor's decision not to pay. Just for clarity, let's not call this "debt forgiveness".
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 11:20 am
So if I were a conservative staff member for a Senator or Congressman and wanted to give my boss some information about what people were saying about the new bankruptcy legislation, this thread on Free Republic would be all I'd need to show them.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 11:22 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
BTW, you can keep your suggestions to yourself, as I'll talk about whatever I damn well please, Tico.


Yes ... we all know know you will , even when you don't know what you're talking about.

JoefromC wrote:
Oh no, Tico, you weren't whining and complaining. I'm sure you were merely pointing out, in an objective, academic fashion, how "unfair" it was that someone got out of a debt to you by declaring bankruptcy and how they were thereby taking "food from your children's mouths."


You don't do sarcasm well, Joe.

Joe wrote:
The people who declare bankruptcy need to be responsible for their actions, just as creditors need to be responsible for theirs. I haven't seen anyone in this thread argue against debtors being responsible. On the other hand, I have seen at least one poster argue against creditors being responsible.


In my view, every poster who has chimed in to support keeping taking personal bankruptcy easy is suggesting that debtors should not be responsible for their debts. You, for one, have argued that it is creditors who are irresponsible for extending credit to debtors, rather than debtors who are irresponsible for not paying their debts. You said ....

Quote:
.... By extending credit, however, it is you who willingly undertake this risk. And if you took the risk, you should bear the consequences.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1213647#1213647

That seems to me indicative of your social views, and they are in opposition to mine. You are truly a liberal ... congratulations.


And since words fail to convey what I really think about this let me just .... http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/puke.gif
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 11:32 am
what facts get lost on those who oppose this legislation, relative only to bankruptcy caused by personal debt, is the fact that lenders will only make the rest of the people pay in the form of higher interest rates.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 11:49 am
That has already been built into their rate structure. This law when it passes should allow for lower rates. That of course will only happen when pigs fly. What it will do in reality is increase the lenders profits.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 11:52 am
Quote:
what facts get lost on those who oppose this legislation, relative only to bankruptcy caused by personal debt, is the fact that lenders will only make the rest of the people pay in the form of higher interest rates.


This is patently untrue. The CC industry profited over 30 billion dollars last year - including the money they lost to bad debt.

That's what interest IS, Woiyo; money paid over time to alleviate the risk of a bad debt. But it's been twisted by the CC and lending companies into a form of bondage for many Americans... and not the fun kind...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 11:56 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
what facts get lost on those who oppose this legislation, relative only to bankruptcy caused by personal debt, is the fact that lenders will only make the rest of the people pay in the form of higher interest rates.


This is patently untrue. The CC industry profited over 30 billion dollars last year - including the money they lost to bad debt.

That's what interest IS, Woiyo; money paid over time to alleviate the risk of a bad debt. But it's been twisted by the CC and lending companies into a form of bondage for many Americans... and not the fun kind...

Cycloptichorn


30 Billion is a number. What does that represent as a return on investments???
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 11:58 am
Quote:
30 Billion is a number. What does that represent as a return on investments???


It's the biggest PROFIT they've ever shown. I don't give a damn what their ROI is; it's profit that matters at the end of the year, and it's bigger than it's ever been for the industry.

How is it possible that they are showing record profits, yet need legislation to tighten bankruptcy?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 12:07 pm
http://www.moranlaw.net/Credit_card_profits.pdf

Don't let the facts get in the way of a debate.

Apparently ROI's have remainded in the 3-4% pre-tax range since de-regulation. That does not seem to be an excessive return, yet if I'm a stockholder, I certainly would look at a better that 4% pre-tax. As interest rates rise, this margin will certainly fall.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 12:20 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
You don't do sarcasm well, Joe.

It was my first attempt.

Ticomaya wrote:
In my view, every poster who has chimed in to support keeping taking personal bankruptcy easy is suggesting that debtors should not be responsible for their debts.

For someone who has criticized others for their lack of reading comprehension, this is a pretty surprising thing to say. You don't do irony well, Tico.

Ticomaya wrote:
You, for one, have argued that it is creditors who are irresponsible for extending credit to debtors, rather than debtors who are irresponsible for not paying their debts. You said ....

Quote:
.... By extending credit, however, it is you who willingly undertake this risk. And if you took the risk, you should bear the consequences.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1213647#1213647

That seems to me indicative of your social views, and they are in opposition to mine. You are truly a liberal ... congratulations.

I simply pointed out that creditors have to be responsible for their own actions. I never said anything about debtors or their responsibility. If you want to make assumptions about my social views based upon what I didn't say, then go right ahead. The conclusions that you draw will say much more about you than they will about me.

Ticomaya wrote:
And since words fail to convey what I really think about this let me just .... http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/puke.gif

You are truly a conservative ... congratulations.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 01:21 pm
Quote:
Senate Near Approval of Bankruptcy Laws
Mar 10, 12:18 PM (ET)

By MARCY GORDON

WASHINGTON (AP) - Majority Republicans methodically knocked down Democratic attempts to ease the effects of a pending bankruptcy bill as senators neared final passage of legislation making it harder for people to dump debts.

With House approval likely to seal work on Capitol Hill next month, the bill would give President Bush the second of his pro-business legislative priorities since the GOP increased its majorities in both chambers last November.

The march to Senate passage was slowed Thursday, however, by partisan wrangling over a Democratic proposal eyeing recent corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom, which appeared to be gathering support among some Republicans. That amendment would prohibit investment banks that advised or financed securities offerings by companies that later filed for bankruptcy from also representing the company or defrauded creditors in the bankruptcy proceeding.

The proposal was meant to prevent conflicts of interest, said sponsor Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. The bankruptcy bill as written would overturn current law to allow investment bankers to play both roles - a move that Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman William Donaldson recently said would be a mistake "at a time when investor confidence is fragile."

Senate Democrats complained that Republican leaders refused to allow a vote on the amendment in Wednesday's session, delaying the tally for a day. Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia, who had been one of the sponsors, was compelled by the GOP leaders to withdraw his name, Senate aides said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Many of the 1.5 million people who seek bankruptcy protection yearly could soon be barred from dissolving medical bills, credit card charges and other debts under the legislation.

The House is expected to follow next month with approval of the legislation, which orders the most thorough overhaul of U.S. bankruptcy laws in a quarter-century. It long has been sought by credit card companies and banks yet stalled for eight years by congressional gridlock.

Bush is eager to sign the measure, delivering to the business community on a campaign promise.

In the earlier pro-business legislative victory for Bush, Congress sent him a law last month placing most large multistate class action lawsuits under federal court jurisdiction, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to join together and win multimillion-dollar judgments in state courts.

As the Senate quickstepped Wednesday toward passage of the legislation, Democratic opponents made last-ditch attempts to restrict practices of the credit industry that they said were especially hurting the poor. Not a dent was made in the bill, which was armor-plated by the Senate's Republican majority against amendments.

The legislation would establish a new income-based test for measuring a debtor's ability to repay debts, require people in bankruptcy to pay for credit counseling and stiffen some legal requirements for debtors in the bankruptcy process.

It would ease some requirements for creditors and enable credit card issuers, retailers and other lenders to recover more of what is owed them.

Opponents say it would fall hard on low-income workers, single mothers, minorities and the elderly and would remove a safety net for those who have lost their jobs or face big medical bills.

"The bankruptcy courts are filled with cases of hardworking single mothers who were pushed over the financial brink because they failed to get the child support they deserve," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., author of an amendment addressing single parents. "Yet this bill would only tighten the screws, looking to squeeze out a few more dollars for the credit card companies."

Backers of the legislation argue that bankruptcy frequently is the last refuge of gamblers, impulsive shoppers, divorced or separated fathers avoiding child support, and multimillionaires - often celebrities - who buy mansions in states with liberal homestead exemptions to shelter assets from creditors.

"The short answer is fairness," insisted Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican. "Those who can pay their bills should pay their bills. That's the American way."

Banks, credit card issuers and retailers have lobbied vigorously for bankruptcy revisions that would force more people to repay at least part of their debt. Such a bill nearly passed in 2002. But it failed when the Senate accepted, but House Republicans rejected, a Democratic amendment barring anti-abortion protesters from using bankruptcy to avoid paying court fines for blocking abortion clinics.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 04/30/2024 at 07:24:03