Bankruptcy Laws to be Overhauled (No more Chapter 7)

[CrabR]

Originally posted by Oldskool

Remember, no one is to blame for any predicament that they encounter themselves in. Its always someone elses fault.

Sometimes it is

Chapter 7 saved my buns years ago, I was self- employed and my major source of income[contracts] filed chapter 7, and they owned me big bucks, so I was stuck between a rock and a hard place. I never got one red cent they owned me.

I would do it again if the same situation presented itself

I had a friend and he had to declare chapter 7 in early 96, he did all government contracts, and due to the Dems and the Reps shutting down the govt every other day he did not get paid, and he could not get on govt property to complete the other work he started. In his line of work the materials were the major expense and he had to pay suppliers in 30 days or get cut off.

[RonJeremy]

This is a bill that SHOULD be passed. Too many people are spending irresponsibly right now and they shouldn't have a free pass called Chapter 7.

For the life of me, I wonder how many people really READ the article. Bankruptcy isn't being eliminated. JUST CHAPTER 7!! You will take your list of debts, assets, and cash to a bankruptcy court and it will determined what should be re-organized and what should be eliminated.

Hardship medical cases, deaths, etc. would be still be able to re-organize or elimate debts. Irresponsible jerk-offs will hopefully not be able to bankrupt thier credit cards and maybe they will have to take a second job to pay off their creditors.

Some of you can argue until your blue in the face, but ultimately it IS the responsbility of individual who accepted the credit card and the terms that go along with it. Including making timely payments and not abusing it.

I had a credit card in college. Used it for books and occassinally for a beer and pizza. I WORKED while I was in college and made payments. Then paid it off when I graduated. That is the way it SHOULD work.

If you abuse the privledge of being extended credit....then you deserve the consequence of having to pay it back...WITHOUT a free pass called Chapter 7.

BTW - Some are under the misconception that you are "screwed" credit wise for 7 years after a bankruptcy. Current mortgage lending regualtions allow a person to purchase a house two years after the BK is discharged and they have established 3 new accounts and they HAVEN'T had any negative credit since then. The old 7 year rule is a MYTH! Also, BK is reported on your credit report for 10 years by the CREDIT REPOSITORIES...TransUnion, Equifax, and TRW...not banks or credit card companies.

[Larry]

Originally posted by Art

Meaning, people can't simply declare bankruptcy while keeping money around. The court will examine whether they are actually unable to pay or if they're just trying NOT to pay and determine that those who do have money to pay can't simply decide NOT to pay.

That's the ENTIRE issue here.

A person who has money to pay being required to pay.

It has nothing to do with anything else.

And, funny, that's exactly what existing bankrupcy law says, too.

The existing law has some aspects that some folks refer to as loopholes. (Although, remember, the term "loophole", like "special interest" is a label of opinion). In Florida, AFAIK, a person declaring bankrupcy can place his home (only one home) "off limits", regardless of it's value. (If the home is mortgaged, then I think the mortgage also becomes off limits for the bankrupcy, and enough of his income to pay the mortgage does, too.) Many jurisdictions allow one car to be excluded. (Some only allow a certain amount of equity in that car, though.)

No, I don't think the Gov is completely eliminating bankrupcy. What they're doing is changing the formula. Aparantly, they're changing it a lot. (Are creditors, under the new system, allowed to demand a debtor make interest-only payments for life, just in case he should later start to make enough money to start paying principal? Are they going to eliminate the statute of limitations on bad debts?)

Yes, I think there are people who abuse bankrupcy. (And, in my experience, they aren't the "less advantaged". But, my experience may be skewed.) But I suspect they are the exceptions, not the rule. And I think a lot of the problems could be fixed without throwing out the bath water.

[Art]

Originally posted by Larry

And, funny, that's exactly what existing bankrupcy law says, too.

The existing law has some aspects that some folks refer to as loopholes. (Although, remember, the term "loophole", like "special interest" is a label of opinion). In Florida, AFAIK, a person declaring bankrupcy can place his home (only one home) "off limits", regardless of it's value. (If the home is mortgaged, then I think the mortgage also becomes off limits for the bankrupcy, and enough of his income to pay the mortgage does, too.) Many jurisdictions allow one car to be excluded. (Some only allow a certain amount of equity in that car, though.)

No, I don't think the Gov is completely eliminating bankrupcy. What they're doing is changing the formula. Aparantly, they're changing it a lot. (Are creditors, under the new system, allowed to demand a debtor make interest-only payments for life, just in case he should later start to make enough money to start paying principal? Are they going to eliminate the statute of limitations on bad debts?)

Yes, I think there are people who abuse bankrupcy. (And, in my experience, they aren't the "less advantaged". But, my experience may be skewed.) But I suspect they are the exceptions, not the rule. And I think a lot of the problems could be fixed without throwing out the bath water.

Larry,

If this is how the current bankruptcy system worked, we wouldn't be making a law to make it work differently. The elimination of Chapter 7 forcing people to go Chapter 13 is a major shift in bankruptcy procedure. It prevents people with the means to repay from not repaying while not preventing people that lack the means to repay from not repaying.

While I have little faith in actions of those in government, I'm really quite confident that they aren't proposing a bill on bankruptcy that precisely matches the existing laws. That would be silly. The change?

Obviously to allow court inspection of assets and finances to determine what a person can repay. Again, liberals LOVE means testing in just about every other way it's mentioned. How come you guys can't embrace it here?

[FBChick]

I think there is a case in point here were people don't understand the difference between a Chapter 7 and a Chapter 13.

Chapter 7 fully discharges the debt (meaning you DO NOT pay another penny to any debtor (save the house morgage and car payment if you so choose). It does NOT require you to maintain any debt or repay any debt in any fashion once discharged. The only requirement currently for a Chapter 7 is to prove the ability to not be able to make current minimum payments on all debt AND expenses (Many utilities, daycare, allimony, child support, etc..) and a resonable explinationa s to how the circumstances came about (though there is no verification to this process, so you can tell them anything!). So while you may have the ability to make some form of payment, a Chapter 7 does not require to do so in any form or fashion.

A Chapter 13 on the other hand (the one that will still exist when this bill passes) actually reviews all income, expenses and debts and comes up with a Repayment plan that will eventually payback ALL or most of the principle debt while protecting the individual from future intrest and penalties, but does so on terms that allows the individual the ability to get by on a day to day basis.

And for those that want to claim how easy it is to get credit after filing bankruptcy.. I'd ask if your friends bother to describe the terms of their new loans. 15-18% intrest on a new car loan? 23-25% intrest on new credit cards? 4-5 points above average for a new house loan. What these people are doing is being ignorant of the consequences that debt and bankruptcy brings by being stupid to go out and sign up for these loans. Are the offers there? Sure. But after going through bankruptcy, do they even bother to ask the question of what the APR is and how long the loan lasts? Do they bother to sit down and figure out that paying $300 a month for 5 years on a $10,000 loan means they are giving the bank $8000 in intrest payments just so they can buy now and pay later? Why wouldn't a bank do this loan? Even if you only managed to make it half way through the loan, they recoop all their costs. You make it 2/3 of the way, they've made out as well as any bank who gave you as resonable rate byt the end of the loan. And if you manage to fully pay off the loan.. they've just hit pay dirt!

But the fact is Art is right. None of these companies can force you to sign the dotted line. None of these companies can lie to you. Yes they may try to bury the truth of it's fees and rates, but there are laws that require that information be disclosed somewhere, somehow prior to the contract being finalized, and well, if you are stupid enough not to read the fine print.. then the fault is yours. It's sad how people don't shop for CC. There is actually a much broader spectrum then people believe, and the sad thing is it's easy enough to figure out the difference. APRs, annual fees, penalty fees. Not too difficult really.

But it's all about educating and big business taking advantage of the ill-informed. I always thought there should have been a "Manage you debt" class that would be made mandatory for all individuals filing for bankruptcy. At least they could claim to be taken to the cleaners twice!

[iheartskins]

UPDATE:

Bankrupt -- and Responsible

March 9, 2005; Page A20

After nearly nine years of trying, the Republican Congress seems poised to pass the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. The political rhetoric and press coverage imply that its passage would mark a return to Middle Ages peonage. Don't believe it.

The legislation amounts to a modest corrective for the way the bankruptcy code has been exploited to allow virtually anyone to write down all his debts instead of repaying some portion of them. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the number of bankruptcy petitions has risen to 1.4 million from 348,000 in the past 15 years, and these filings cost businesses some $40 billion annually.

Part of the problem with current law is that people filing under Chapter 7 of the code can have their debts wiped away regardless of their ability to repay. The bankruptcy reform bill would curb this abuse by instituting a needs-based approach to Chapter 7 relief. Those lacking income sufficient to pay both their living expenses and their debts would still be able to seek Chapter 7 relief. But wealthy debtors and others who can repay some of what they owe from current income would be required to file under Chapter 13 of the code, and hence subject to a repayment schedule determined by the bankruptcy court.

The criticism -- a favorite of Democrats like Senator Ted Kennedy -- that the reform will hit the poor and elderly hardest is disingenuous. The Chapter 7 option would be preserved for those who truly need it. The means test doesn't apply to people making less than the median income in their state. And the bill has a carve-out for those with incomes above the median who can prove special circumstances, such as debt acquired though medical expenses, military service, divorce or other hardships. Nor is every proponent of the measure fronting for the credit-card industry, a favorite target of consumer advocates. Credit-card debt generally makes up less than 20% of a bankruptcy filer's total debt load.

Yesterday the Senate voted to end debate on the legislation after rejecting a totally unrelated abortion amendment proposed by New York Democrat Chuck Schumer that had doomed passage in past years. The House passed its version of the bill in the last Congress and is expected to follow the Senate's lead this year.

Businesses and consumers alike ultimately pay when people are able to walk away from their debts. This reform would be a small but important step toward more personal responsibility.

Source: Wall Street Journal

[iheartskins]

Here's an article as opposed to an editorial:

The New Rules Of Bankruptcy

Overhaul Is on Track to Clear Congress,

But Housing, Trust Exemptions Remain

By MICHAEL SCHROEDER

Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

March 9, 2005; Page D1

Congress is on the verge of passing a bankruptcy-code overhaul that will make it harder – but certainly not impossible – for people to walk away from their debts.

The new legislation makes it far more likely that some middle-income Americans who fall into financial trouble will end up paying back at least some of their debts if they file for personal bankruptcy. Among other things, the bill makes it tougher to qualify for the preferred form of bankruptcy, Chapter Seven, which lets debtors erase most if not all of their debt and start with a clean slate.

Wealthy individuals will be less likely to feel the impact of the legislation. That is because the bill retains significant loopholes that could be used to shelter valuable assets from the bankruptcy process, such as exemptions for homes that protects them from being seized. The proposed new rules also retain a loophole that permits people to set up so-called "asset protection trusts," which are exempt from being used to pay off debts in a bankruptcy proceeding.

The legislation is on track to pass the Senate this week, following the defeat of a contentious abortion-related amendment that had been proposed. The bill is likely to get quick approval by both the House and President Bush.

The changes, which come after eight years of failed attempts, represent one of the most-significant rewrites in decades. Supporters -- credit unions, banks, and retailers -- have sought the legislation to curb alleged abuses in the system. In the past 10 years, personal-bankruptcy petitions have nearly doubled, but they declined 3.8% to 1.56 million last year, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute, a research organization.

The most important change in the legislation would make it tougher for indebted families to file under Chapter Seven of the bankruptcy law -- the preferred method, since it lets filers avoid paying their debts and start fresh. The new measure would force more people to file instead under Chapter 13 of the code, in which a court oversees a five-year repayment period.

About 70% of people filing for bankruptcy today do so under Chapter Seven. Overall, about 90% of bankruptcy filings result from either large medical bills, divorce or loss of a job, according to Elizabeth Warren, a professor at the Harvard Law School.

The bill leaves in place a contentious exemption: Debtors can still own and retain expensive houses in certain states that protect the homes from a forced sale to pay debts. However, the legislation does attempt to limit the exemption by requiring that filers own their homes for 40 months to qualify for the exemption. Not all states allow a housing exemption.

Henry Sommer, president of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, said that the new ownership rule still represents a loophole because people of means who are concerned about running into money problems already may own homes in Florida or Texas, or may plan ahead and buy property in advance of plans to file for bankruptcy protection.

The Senate, during debate on the bill, also rejected efforts to kill off the loophole that permits the wealthy to protect assets by opening special trust accounts in any of several states, including Alaska, Delaware, Rhode Island, Nevada and Utah. Doctors have been setting up these so-called asset-protection trusts for years to protect themselves from malpractice litigation. Now, executives are following suit, as a result of the latest round of corporate scandals and the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which makes top executives and directors accountable for their company's financial results.

About 1,500 domestic asset-protection trusts holding more than $2 billion in assets were created between 1997 and 2003, according to an estimate by Wilmington Trust Co.

In addition, the bill increases the value to $1 million of retirement funds exempted from bankruptcy claims. The current law has complicated formulas to exempt pensions.

The bill for the first time imposes on the bankruptcy court a strict "means test" to make sure people with assets repay some of their debts. It also puts other new paperwork burdens on debtors that may dissuade some from seeking bankruptcy protection. For instance, a new test that restricts Chapter Seven filings to people whose incomes fall below the median in their states would push between 3% and 10% -- or between 47,000 and 156,000 filers -- each year into Chapter 13. State median incomes vary widely, from $46,169 for a family of four in West Virginia in 2003 to $87,412 in New Jersey, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The means test, which is intended to assure more people pay back some debt, sets a low bar for determining whether a filer belongs in Chapter 13. The bill would formalize strict standards for bankruptcy judges to follow. The test would shift a filer to Chapter 13 from Seven if he or she has as little as $100 a month in income in excess of the Internal Revenue Service's allowable expenses, including $196 a month for food and $756 a month for housing and utilities. In such a case, the person would be required to repay $6,000 over 60 months.

Source: Wall Street Journal

[SnyderShrugged]

Believe me when I say that the abuse of chapter 7 is rampant and it hurts consumers more as a result.

The lending institutions have to increase their costs extensively and that will always turn back on the consumer in the form of higher rates to compensate.

That being said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a move to a means test and a chapter 13 style that allows repayment plans as opposed to the fince company to eat the debt.

Why should the finance company have to absorb someone elses poor decisions in overextending themselves? Remember, the consumer is the one that buiolds up this debt and it can occur gradually or it can occur almost overnight.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by FBChick

I think there is a case in point here were people don't understand the difference between a Chapter 7 and a Chapter 13.

Chapter 7 fully discharges the debt (meaning you DO NOT pay another penny to any debtor (save the house morgage and car payment if you so choose). It does NOT require you to maintain any debt or repay any debt in any fashion once discharged. The only requirement currently for a Chapter 7 is to prove the ability to not be able to make current minimum payments on all debt AND expenses (Many utilities, daycare, allimony, child support, etc..) and a resonable explinationa s to how the circumstances came about (though there is no verification to this process, so you can tell them anything!). So while you may have the ability to make some form of payment, a Chapter 7 does not require to do so in any form or fashion.

A Chapter 13 on the other hand (the one that will still exist when this bill passes) actually reviews all income, expenses and debts and comes up with a Repayment plan that will eventually payback ALL or most of the principle debt while protecting the individual from future intrest and penalties, but does so on terms that allows the individual the ability to get by on a day to day basis.

And for those that want to claim how easy it is to get credit after filing bankruptcy.. I'd ask if your friends bother to describe the terms of their new loans. 15-18% intrest on a new car loan? 23-25% intrest on new credit cards? 4-5 points above average for a new house loan. What these people are doing is being ignorant of the consequences that debt and bankruptcy brings by being stupid to go out and sign up for these loans. Are the offers there? Sure. But after going through bankruptcy, do they even bother to ask the question of what the APR is and how long the loan lasts? Do they bother to sit down and figure out that paying $300 a month for 5 years on a $10,000 loan means they are giving the bank $8000 in intrest payments just so they can buy now and pay later? Why wouldn't a bank do this loan? Even if you only managed to make it half way through the loan, they recoop all their costs. You make it 2/3 of the way, they've made out as well as any bank who gave you as resonable rate byt the end of the loan. And if you manage to fully pay off the loan.. they've just hit pay dirt!

But the fact is Art is right. None of these companies can force you to sign the dotted line. None of these companies can lie to you. Yes they may try to bury the truth of it's fees and rates, but there are laws that require that information be disclosed somewhere, somehow prior to the contract being finalized, and well, if you are stupid enough not to read the fine print.. then the fault is yours. It's sad how people don't shop for CC. There is actually a much broader spectrum then people believe, and the sad thing is it's easy enough to figure out the difference. APRs, annual fees, penalty fees. Not too difficult really.

But it's all about educating and big business taking advantage of the ill-informed. I always thought there should have been a "Manage you debt" class that would be made mandatory for all individuals filing for bankruptcy. At least they could claim to be taken to the cleaners twice!

Great post!

[Larry]

So let's see. The new, improved, tougher law has successfully avoided attempts that would have made it apply to

• People who sank all their money into a multi-million-dollar house in Florida, when they were getting ready for bankrupcy.
  
• People who hid their money in special bank accounts that are set up specifically for the purpose of making them exempt from bankrupcy
  
• People who broke the law while participating in an anti-abortion "protest", but don't want to pay their fine.
  

Everybody else, this law is cracking down on.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Larry

So let's see. The new, improved, tougher law has successfully avoided attempts that would have made it apply to

• People who sank all their money into a multi-million-dollar house in Florida, when they were getting ready for bankrupcy.
  
• People who hid their money in special bank accounts that are set up specifically for the purpose of making them exempt from bankrupcy
  
• People who broke the law while participating in an anti-abortion "protest", but don't want to pay their fine.
  

Everybody else, this law is cracking down on.

Larry, while no reform can be perfect in it's early phases, it is certainly a start to eliminating the abuse out there.

You acknowledge that the items you mentioned can and do happen. You must also acknowledge that those scenarios are not the predominant situation.

This reform addresses the largest issue first and hopefully there will be more reform to cover the remainder.

What exactly are you objecting to?

Don't you feel that a debtor needs to repay the debt in some form rather than put finance companys out of business because they have to absorb bankruptcy debt?

[Joe Sick]

Without an exemption for people for catastrophic medical bills, this new law is horrible.

Once again, this administration chooses big business over regular people and no one cares. I wonder if all the loopholes for companies that want to "restructure" is taken away. Doubt it.

The average US citizen bends over once again. The Democrats who voted for this will never get my vote.

[Larry]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas

Don't you feel that a debtor needs to repay the debt in some form rather than put finance companys out of business because they have to absorb bankruptcy debt?

Certainly.

But unfortunately, I've seen too many (not many, but one is too many) people who literally, intentionally manage their affairs with the forethought that if might be to their advantage to use bankruptcy, someday. They plan on it.

And these aren't the folks who get in too deep on credit cards of have unexpected medical bills.

My mom, many years ago, got really mad at me. She'd just met a guy that she was going in with on some business ventures. She explained to me that this guy was a really sharp operator, because he owned about a dozen corporations, named like 1000 Inc, 2000 Inc, and so forth, so that he could shift assets from one venture to another as needed.

I told her to get as far away as possible from the guy, because, to me, the only reason to structure your finances that way, is so that any time you feel like it, one of the corporations can claim bankrupcy and shaft all of his partners.

I see "Where are they now?" stories about the Enron executives. Many of them are unemployeed, and they're being sued for billions by the folks they defrauded, but they're building multi-million-dollar houses in Florida, so that when they finally make it in to court, they can say "gee, I'm broke", ignore the penalty handed down by the gourt, and still keep their millions.

(Granted, that last one is, aparantly, a Florida thing, not Federal).

But what I'm seeing is a law that appears to be specifically designed to crack down on people who find themselves bankrupt unexpectedly, but which has been deliberatly designed not to apply to people who planned on it.

(In fact, this law has aparantly been attempted to pass for about 10 years, and up 'till now, the opponents have been able to kill it by removing the exemption for people who break the law (in anti-abortion protests). Aparantly, if the law applies to anti-abortion "protesters", then at least some of the bills supporters change their vote, and oppose it. There is, aparantly, at least one Senator who's position is "I want people who are in debt to pay back their debt, unless they owe money because they got caught breaking the law in a cause that I support.")

[BadKarma]

I have never filed for bankruptcy, I have never filed for undemployment or welfare. But I like the fact that it is there if something were to go wrong because bad things happen to good people all the time. I don't see how anyone can argue with that....

On a side note, I would be willing to bet that this bill never passes.

[iheartskins]

BadKarma: It's already passed in the Senate--but has yet to pass in the house.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Joe Sick

Without an exemption for people for catastrophic medical bills, this new law is horrible.

Once again, this administration chooses big business over regular people and no one cares. I wonder if all the loopholes for companies that want to "restructure" is taken away. Doubt it.

The average US citizen bends over once again. The Democrats who voted for this will never get my vote.

Joe, what do you think the means test is for?

It is to determine the actual circumstances and how they apply to BK procedings.

There is an exemption for catastrophic events, you should try reading the article next time.

Why is it so hard to understand? There are methods of bankruptcy that can still be used. This only removes the opportunity for widespread abuse.

Your comments about this being for "big business" are rediculous.

This protects large and small creditors in the same manner.

If you set the stage so those that can lend money are pushed out of business how would you expect to even get the opportunity to rack up debt at all?

How would you buy a home or car without a finance company?

How much did you buy on credit this past year would you have to sacrifice without those that loan you the money?

This dark ages Robin Hood mentality of the "evil business man"

is trashing our society as a whole.

Give it a break!

[heyholetsgogrant]

Originally posted by iheartskins

About 70% of people filing for bankruptcy today do so under Chapter Seven. Overall, about 90% of bankruptcy filings result from either large medical bills, divorce or loss of a job, according to Elizabeth Warren, a professor at the Harvard Law School.

Thats whats key here, its not because people are going out spending money like sea sick sailers. This is just part of Bush;s master plan to push conservative Ideology.

Social Security Reform-Check (So Wal street can get rich)

Civil Reform- Check (so when the business you work for posions you with abestos knowingly you can sue0.

Phony Tax Reform-Check

Ban Aborton-Check

Cap on settlements-Check

No sex education in school- check ( so we have an increase in pregnacy amoung 14 yr olds)

Ignore North Korea who is the ture threat- Check

I quess its time to burn books.

[chomerics]

Skin, here is the problem you always seem to miss, there is nothing going towards the other side, and in fact this bill PROTECTS multi-millionaires in their bankrupcy suits. Did you read the little quip, Assets are exempt from repaying consmer debt.

Furthermore, look at the sec filings for banks, are they hurting? No, they're doing good. So now will they drop the rates??? I mean, with the passage of this bill, there will be the reduced risk right? So why don't they tie into lowering their rates for this reduced risk?

How about limiting their exposure to college students? Make it difficult, not easy to get a credit card if you are college kid? How about restricting credit to low income individuals. That would be a good thing right???

Yet, there is nothing in the bill to correct predetory lending practices. THey get a huge cash windfall from their "investment" into the RNC, and now they will be resopnsibile for creating class seperation in our society.

I bet all you neo-cons are reeeaaaalllll proud, huh. I could post a hundred stories about people getting screwed by credit card companies, but you have absolutely no problem with them. . . and halliburton. . . and enron. . . and oh nevermind :doh:

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by chomerics

Skin, here is the problem you always seem to miss, there is nothing going towards the other side, and in fact this bill PROTECTS multi-millionaires in their bankrupcy suits. Did you read the little quip, Assets are exempt from repaying consmer debt.

Furthermore, look at the sec filings for banks, are they hurting? No, they're doing good. So now will they drop the rates??? I mean, with the passage of this bill, there will be the reduced risk right? So why don't they tie into lowering their rates for this reduced risk?

How about limiting their exposure to college students? Make it difficult, not easy to get a credit card if you are college kid? How about restricting credit to low income individuals. That would be a good thing right???

Yet, there is nothing in the bill to correct predetory lending practices. THey get a huge cash windfall from their "investment" into the RNC, and now they will be resopnsibile for creating class seperation in our society.

I bet all you neo-cons are reeeaaaalllll proud, huh. I could post a hundred stories about people getting screwed by credit card companies, but you have absolutely no problem with them. . . and halliburton. . . and enron. . . and oh nevermind :doh:

Love that you lable me neo-con, but whatever dude.

Predatory lending, huh.

show me anyone who was forced to sign a loan contract against their will.

That's alright. It seems you want rates to be as high as possible for your loans and the loans of those whom you claim to be "protecting"

You do understand that finance companys also want to be able to offer the lowest rates possible in order to attract business?

Do you understand that this eliminates those who practice buy and file purchase policies?

Exactly how is one "screwed" by a credit card company if they don't sign for the credit to begin with?

I love that your answer is to withhold credit from a legal segment of the population.

If that happened, you would be screaming that they were discriminated against because they were poor!!

Please fill me in on what I supposidly missed Cho.

Can individuals still file legitimate bankruptcy? ans.=yes

Can they get away with eliminating their debt and avoiding their legal obligations= No, under new plan

Can those who have special cases still be obsolved of their debt?= Yes

so what exactly is tonights rant from you really about?

You cry agony with no apparent injury.

You are the one who doesnt seem to "get it"

Will

[BadKarma]

Originally posted by iheartskins

BadKarma: It's already passed in the Senate--but has yet to pass in the house.

iheartskins, I believe thats the way it happened before when they tried to pass it but the house ended up killing it. Thanks for the update though, I recently switched business to a firm that would directly benefit from this bill passing and I have been perusing this thread for valuable water cooler conversation. As always Extremeskins is a fountain of knowledge.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by heyholetsgogrant

Thats whats key here, its not because people are going out spending money like sea sick sailers. This is just part of Bush;s master plan to push conservative Ideology.

Social Security Reform-Check (So Wal street can get rich)

Civil Reform- Check (so when the business you work for posions you with abestos knowingly you can sue0.

Phony Tax Reform-Check

Ban Aborton-Check

Cap on settlements-Check

No sex education in school- check ( so we have an increase in pregnacy amoung 14 yr olds)

Ignore North Korea who is the ture threat- Check

I quess its time to burn books.

cry me a river.

This legislation has been bi-partisan and spoken about ever since bankruptcy filings rose to ghastly levels.

so, please steer from whatever tripe you want to spew and tell us why reforming in this manner is a negative to anyone who legitimately takes out a loan in good faith?

Should we just start pulling money forcably out of anyones pockets who seems to have more than you and give it away without any chance of repayment.

Robin Hood was a myth.

If someone borrowed money from you, wouldnt it be a logical expectation to get it back?

:doh:

[SnyderShrugged]

Also forgot to ad Cho that you are totally reading into the "assets are exempt from repaying consumer debt" thing.

It is in reference that you can't lose your home to pay a past due credit card bill.

It's a PROTECTION to the CONSUMER, not the creditor.

You are jumping at shadows unless you really feel that any person in any circumstance can rack up debt irresponsibly and then say that they just don't want to pay it back, without any consequences except to those who loaned them money to begin with.

[MaddogCT]

"Shame on you people for doing what the rich have been doing for decades."

:logo:

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by MaddogCT

"Shame on you people for doing what the rich have been doing for decades."

:logo:

kindly explain what the "rich" have been doing for decades?

[Destino]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas

Predatory lending, huh.

show me anyone who was forced to sign a loan contract against their will.

Ah so then taking advantage of people own stupidity is now considered ok in this country? It may be legal but screwing people on purpose is wrong. The decision makers at these companies and you and I know damn well what they are hoping to accomplish here.

Now we as a nation must reduce the risk of this legalized scam? I say no thanks, and I sleep well at night because I take these unpopular stances. Perhaps you can say the same.