Any thoughts on Bankruptcy bills in Senate ? [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Suff

03-06-2005, 04:25 PM

I have a dirtbag neighbor who doesn't work, whose mortgage was in foreclosure, and declared bankruptcy TWICE - so he gets to stay in his house and avoid a sheriff's sale, plus have his seriously delinquent utility bills forgiven. I work two jobs to pay my mortgage and bills and ask myself, "What am I doing wrong?"

These bankruptcy laws SUCK.

I need to look closer at it to have a better informed opinion. I do know My Senator (Ted Kennedy) is deeply involved so I'm comforted by that. I know he'll look out for the working mans interests.

I have followed it in the newspapers...and its been a 2nd tier story for about 2 or 3 years now. I read the WSJ a couple of times a week. I see Corporate Bankruptcys that amount in the 100's of BILLION dollars. Enron and Worldcom are just two of the top of my head... But anyone that reads the business news, or any type of financial Journals would probably agree with me. The damage to our economy from Business bankruptys far outwiegh personal Bankruptcies.

One stat that I did cull from a Newspaper piece is that 50% of all Personal Bankruptcys are due to Health Costs. Either when the main Breadwinner is Disabled and cannot produce an income....or when a family members Health care costs exceeds the breadwinners Coverage or ability to pay..
Doc's example aside... I think legislation involving Health Care costs may go far in Limiting Bankruptcies , rather than stripping citizens of the same priviledges Corporations get.

On the the same theme... and using Financial Journals to form my opinion.

They want to Reform our Laws to cap Jury awards to citizens that sue Corporations for damages. But when I read the Business news I see Lawsuits that commonly reach 100's of millions of dollars when business's sue business's. Everything from Patent Violations, to copyright violations to fraud... And yet I do not see the same sense of outrage nor the same theory that these large awards hurt our economy. IMHO... If you cap Joe 6 pack... you cap big business.

Doc

03-06-2005, 08:05 PM

You stated something that I rarely see on this Off-Topic thread. You stated that your senator, Edward Kennedy, looks after the working man's interest. That warmed my heart to see you write that, because in the last 4 years or more the Republicans in this country have been trying to twist the country's perception of Democrats as reckless legislators without a conscience. My father (God rest his soul, he just passed away in May) always said the Democratic Party was the voice of the working man, not the corporation. And I always viewed Kennedy as being one of those voices.

Secretariat

03-06-2005, 09:39 PM

I agree. Let the laws alone. If we can find a way of keeping people out of bankruptcy we'd be spending time better.

Secretariat

03-09-2005, 07:29 AM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050309/ap_on_go_co/bankruptcy

Suff

03-09-2005, 11:26 AM

That warmed my heart to see you write that, because in the last 4 years or more the Republicans in this country have been trying to twist the country's perception of Democrats as reckless legislators without a conscience. My father (God rest his soul, he just passed away in May) always said the Democratic Party was the voice of the working man, not the corporation. And I always viewed Kennedy as being one of those voices.

They're eliminating Social Security.. Not reforming it. Because if you take out the contributons to put them in private accounts.. SSI is dead. And they're not giving you choices or control of your own money.. because your choice will be only 1 of 4 offered INDEX funds... and anyone out here with Market know how.. will tell you.. and INDEX fund is NOT choosing your individual investment model. They make mutal funds look like Hedge Funds.

So thats ok,,, thats what they want.. but don't lie to the people.. Conservatives always viewed SSI as a bad program and they want to get rid it... ALL Wall Street... and by the way.. they are against FORCING you to invest in SSI.. But they are going to FORCE you to invest with one of these guys listed here... I'm no fan of Govt.. but I trust them more than these snakes,,, and how is FORCING me to do business with them ... a choice... Its not..

Bush's Top donors 2004

Morgan Stanley
$600,480

Merrill Lynch
$580,004

PriceWaterhouseCoopers
$512,500

UBS Americas
$468,075

Goldman Sachs
$388,600

MBNA Corp
$354,350

Credit Suisse First Boston
$330,040

Lehman Brothers
$327,725

Citigroup Inc
$318,370

Bear Stearns
$309,150

Ernst & Young
$300,140

Lets not forget.. he wants to eliminate overtime....and allow illegal immigrants to get worker status and compete for your jobs with legal citizens... and they sit idly by when Jobs are pouring overseas and go so far as to tell you thats it good for america... Because now foriegners can afford to buy DVD's & TV's made in China by US Corporations... lol..

oh yeah they want to CAP jury awards to citizens.. and oh yeah they want limit bankrputcy protection for citizens. Ladies and Gentleman.. If you cannot see that Big Business is at the Trough of Goverment at this time in our history.. I don't know what to say to you..

Bobby

03-09-2005, 11:47 AM

agree completely. The pendulum has swung far right. Big Business controls the show on Cap. Hill.

Kreed

03-09-2005, 01:16 PM

hehe like my firm is listed but honestly I think it means that MOST firms
thought #43 was a Sure Winner. But they gave a bit to the DEMS to.
Now, the Big Law Firms probly gave lots more to Kerry than 43. (I'm on
my lunch time & Love my new job ... but why didn't I know post at AQU
was 1 today) ... have Fun guys

sq764

03-09-2005, 03:24 PM

agree completely. The pendulum has swung far right. Big Business controls the show on Cap. Hill.
And you think this just recently changed?

Bobby

03-09-2005, 05:47 PM

ljb

03-09-2005, 05:55 PM

He has an answer to the high gas prices too. Drill in the Gulf of Mexico !

sq764

03-09-2005, 07:05 PM

Well, I guess you could go back to the "Republican Revolution." But I'm talking about since Bush II. His policies include eliminate SS, cut overtime pay, tort reform, allow illegal immigration, pollute the environment, etc..
Eliminate SS?? You're joking right?

If anything, at least he's trying to do SOMETHING to prolong it..

Tom

03-09-2005, 11:54 PM

It is discouraging that Bush has come down on the wrong side of every bill that affect thw wroking stiffs. You can label it "lobbying" but it is outright naked bribery - for BOTH side of the aisle. Bush has no clue what it is like to be a workig guy, just like his daddy did not know what a supermarket scanner was. Seriously, can someone this out of touch with reality be fit to lead? Bush has earned a soild F so far in his second term. He represents iraqiis. Mexicans, banks, lawyers...but not the American people. Not by a longshot.
He blows billions of dollars on his so-called war on terror, but just today we find illegal aliens working in maintenance for the airlines! Read: security breech!
Anyone with a pair of sneakers can just walk over the border, and he is there to greet them with open arms. His fomer Sec of Health, Tommy-boy was actually spending millions of dollars to vacinate Mexicans in Mexico so they would be healthy when they came here illegally! Millions that we could have spent HERE on health care for TAXPAYERS!!!!!!

Now he is protecting irresponsible banks at the expense of AMERICAN people -who's donation is he honoring today??
I see a lot of Mullins in King George. A total disregard for the American people.

sq764

03-10-2005, 09:38 AM

Tom, put the whiskey bottle down my man..

Equineer

03-10-2005, 11:14 AM

Tom, put the whiskey bottle down my man..SQ764,

As much as Tom and I disagree on many basic issues (especially his rather draconian remedies), he is definitely not a neo-con fool who embraces blind political partisanship like a fanatic sports fan. Please take to the bottle and do us all a favor!

sq764

03-10-2005, 11:29 AM

SQ764,

As much as Tom and I disagree on many basic issues (especially his rather draconian remedies), he is definitely not a neo-con fool who embraces blind political partisanship like a fanatic sports fan. Please take to the bottle and do us all a favor!
This coming from a blind liberal fool..

ljb

03-10-2005, 02:39 PM

sq764

03-10-2005, 03:06 PM

Sq,
Your naivete is overwhelming. Tom is man enough to speak his mind even when it goes against neo-con principals. Please try to broaden your horizons a bit and see that the neo-cons are not God. They do make mistakes.
I have said before here that I didn't agree with the lack of planning the Republicans used when going into Iraq. I certainly don't agree with a lot of things they do. Just because i don't whine about them like you and Equiqueer, doesn't mean I don't agree.

(And using the term 'neo-con' really makes you look like an ass. But hey, maybe you strive for that, who knows..)

46zilzal

03-10-2005, 06:22 PM

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/3075552

Tom

03-10-2005, 07:56 PM

I cannot, in good faith, back many, many, things Bush and repubs are doing. I think Bush is bordering on treason with his blatant refusal to protect our borders. I will back him when I thinkg he is doing the right thing, and condemn him when he threatens our citizens.
What is the point of being a gret nation if we don' ttake care of our own?
Dosn't being a citizen -therefore a shareholder and part owner of this country - mean anything? The first corporation that comes along with a fat check and off to the races he goes. Like a street hooker when a Lincoln pulls up to her corner.

46zilzal

03-10-2005, 08:00 PM

The first corporation that comes along with a fat check and off to the races he goes. Like a street hooker when a Lincoln pulls up to her corner.
Great description of the RUTBAGA

Kreed

03-10-2005, 08:12 PM

Marry me you hot Dog cause I Love that /// i want a President who says "I am
for YOU, USA citizens, & I'm gonna make you Proud. Too many good plans
hurt our own & to me thats NOT ok.

ElKabong

03-10-2005, 09:14 PM

Oh and here is another amendment the republicans defeated.
As part of the bankruptcy bill, they defeated an amendment protecting soldiers. So if you make 50K a year in your civilian job, get called up for a year for a Nat. Guard commitment - a year in which you are paid 24K - and it causes a bankruptcy... well, tough shit.

You don't even know the contents of the Bill, yet you posted the crap above. Here, get some facts straight, ljb.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/09/bankruptcy.glance.ap/index.html

Allow for special accommodations for active-duty service members, low-income veterans and those with serious medical conditions in the new income test for bankruptcy applicants.

ElKabong

03-10-2005, 09:26 PM

fwiw, I'm no fan of this bill. It just opens the door for credit card co's to be more aggressive in their never ending search to burden people with tons of debt that can't pay. Essentially the CC corp's have little incentive to practice sound business principles. Just flood the populace (mostly the ones who aren't fiscally responsible) with easy credit, raise the rates, and now they can take assets from some.

However, after reading what's actually in this bill, it ain't half as bad as the dems here are letting it on to be. If you are poor, you won't get tossed out of your home, if your a single parent you won't have child suppoert stopped (in fact YOU'RE THE FIRST ONE TO GET PAID), active duty Military members get special treatment as they should. As I read it, if your income is less than your states' median income, your situation hasn't changed one bit from what is cureently in place.

That, seems fair.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/09/bankruptcy.glance.ap/index.html

If enacted, the bill would:

--Set up a new test for measuring a debtor's ability to repay. People within sufficient assets or income could still file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which if approved by a judge erases debts entirely after certain assets are forfeited.

But those with income above the state's median income who can pay at least $6,000 over five years -- $100 a month -- would be forced into Chapter 13, where a judge would order a repayment plan.

Under current law, a bankruptcy judge determines under which chapter of the bankruptcy code a person falls -- whether they have to repay some or all of their debt.

--Require people filing for bankruptcy to pay for credit counseling.

--Give top priority to a spouse's claims for child support among creditors' claims on a debtor in bankruptcy.

--Allow for special accommodations for active-duty service members, low-income veterans and those with serious medical conditions in the new income test for bankruptcy applicants.

--Restrict the homestead exemption in states to $125,000 if the person in bankruptcy bought his or her residence at least three years and four months before filing. Florida, Iowa, Kansas, South Dakota and Texas have unlimited homestead exemptions that allow wealthy people to file for bankruptcy and keep their mansions in those states sheltered from creditors.

ElKabong

03-10-2005, 09:37 PM

One more thing I don't like about this..., it looks like big govt is attempting a comeback. Seems to me this s/b an 'individual state' problem to deal with (and its already been done). Maybe I'm wrong...JMHO.

ElKabong

03-10-2005, 10:03 PM

I agree. Let the laws alone. If we can find a way of keeping people out of bankruptcy we'd be spending time better.

sec,

the chart you showed gave an appearance of trending upwards....just to set it straight, this from an AP story. Let's hope this is the beginning of fewer bankruptcy filings.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-cong/2005/mar/09/030901976.html

New personal bankruptcy filings declined to 1,599,986 from 1,613,097 in the year ending last June 30, breaking an upward trend of recent years.

Tom

03-10-2005, 10:11 PM

El....good analysis. Big Brother is always out there and never welcome. The conservatives have lost thier way and no longer represent conservative values for the most part. ( I still maintain the libs never had any to begin with :rolleyes: )

My questoin is why?
Is personal bankruptcy a more urgent problem than illegal immigratins at the rate of 3 million undocumented aliens coming here every year? With who knows how many terrorists amoungst them? To be able to get driver's licenses which tehy then use to get easier access to our benifits, our health care, our airlines, etc.?
Is it more of a crisis than the blatant illegal trade violatons by China and ohers? This year, January alone, 50,000 textile jobs went to to China, and over the next three years, a half million more will follow.

Conservatism is supposed to stand for personal accountablity. OK, so who is hiring all these illegals? People that are breaking the law, yet Bush want to ignore that fact. The illegal are breaking the law and committing felonies by violating or borders, American businessmen are breaking the law and hiring
them. No accountability here. But take some American workers who are out of work (in no small part due to the ridiculous notion that the US is moving towards tech jobs and a service economy and this will make up for all the good jobs now lost - yet we are only 5th on the list of tech leaders in the world today - and falling!) get behind without health care, fall into deep debt, and now become the number one target of this lost administration. It boggles the mind. The executive branch is not representing the people - it is representing the lobbyists - who, by definition, bribers! For crying out loud - this is blaant bribery and everyone just nods and turns their heads, afraid to lose thier cut of the payola. We are going down the same road that the Soviet Union took - and we will end like they did in less than 10 years if we don't take the government back from those who would sell thier souls for a few pieces of silver.
And I do not see a sinlge potential leader on the horizon. :bang:

Secretariat

03-10-2005, 10:18 PM

sec,

the chart you showed gave an appearance of trending upwards....just to set it straight, this from an AP story. Let's hope this is the beginning of fewer bankruptcy filings.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-cong/2005/mar/09/030901976.html

New personal bankruptcy filings declined to 1,599,986 from 1,613,097 in the year ending last June 30, breaking an upward trend of recent years.

The overall trend is going upward with an excessive amount of filings in 2003. 2004 showed less than 2003 but, filings in 2004 surpassed 2002, 2001, 2000.

Here's a great site on bankruptcy information:

http://www.bankruptcyaction.com/USbankstats.htm

sq764

03-10-2005, 10:21 PM

Tom, I agree with some of you points.. What I can't understand though is your tone that sounds like this just started this year or 5 years ago.. This has been going on for decades!

When will the Dems take some responsibility for this? If Bush is so terrible, why do they continue to nominate these no personaility stiffs to run against him?

I'll tell ya why... These Dems in the richest counties of the country don't want a Dem to win!! They have it too good with Bush in office.. They only vote for the Dem candidate out of guilt, as to not contribute to the poor getting poorer..

ElKabong

03-10-2005, 10:31 PM

Ya Tom, I'm with you. The illegal immigration problem is my biggest pet peeve of this admin, and the ones before it.

I do have some info on this subject, but it'd take a long winded Equivette-esque post to detail. Short story is, 350 million bucks a yr are gen'd towards the social security funds by so-called ghost acct's---for illegals. Uncle sam doesn't have to pay it out, he only takes it in. Free money for the gov and they don't want to let go of it...Every prez admin has turned away from the issue of what Texas, Calif, AZ, etc are going thru b/c of the porous borders (they suck the funds for education, health services, etc) and we suffer down here for it.

Now we have achmed crossing the rio grande....inexcuseable.

I;ll find that link to what I was speaking of and pm it to you. It was a Fla publication if I recall that nicely detailed why the feds haven't been cracking down.....inexcuseable.

Tom

03-10-2005, 11:12 PM

El...thanks - looking forward to the link

SQ...after 9-11-01, I have a lot higher expectations for the president. BAU is no longer acceptable. Had Bush bailed after one term I would excuse it as him not wishing to play under the new rules, but his running for term #2 is his agreement to the new rules.

BTW....the FRENCH (yuch!) are on strike - don't want to have to work over 35 hours a week. Some things never change. Lazy slugs. Maybe they think WE will come over to Normandy, land, and then work those 5 hours for them! :rolleyes:

ElKabong

03-11-2005, 12:09 AM

After reading ljb, suff, bobby, etc's posts, you'd think the only ones pushing for this bill were repubs....Guess again.

You dems didn't mention there were 17 or 18 democrat senators that voted for this thing (including Joe Biden, W hater extraordinaire). Am I to take from this that (1) the dems that voted "yes" are bought out by big business too, or (2) they see this as the right and reasonable course to take?

Which is it, boys?

http://www.bklaw.com/newbankruptcylaw.html

YEAs ---74

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

Not Voting - 1

Clinton (D-NY)

PaceAdvantage

03-11-2005, 12:56 AM

I do know My Senator (Ted Kennedy) is deeply involved so I'm comforted by that. I know he'll look out for the working mans interests.

Well, I guess this is the long lost explanation to the Chappaquiddick incident. Teddy boy looks out for the working MAN'S interest...not the working woman's.....

Suff

03-11-2005, 09:37 AM

Well, I guess this is the long lost explanation to the Chappaquiddick incident. .

what explanation is required? He was drunk, ran his car off the bridge and his passenger was drowned. Had it been 1999 instead of 1969 he most assuredly would have been charged with vehicular manslaughter, or negligent manslaughter. Simply because he was intoxicated. Although there is no proof of that. Circumstancial evidence is clear that he was drinking. It was a Regatta on the Cape.. a Beach party. The car did flip over and land under water with him in it. I can surmise that being intoxicated and the force of the crash, no doubt , effected his decison making in the aftermath. But that doesn't excuse his actions. At a minimum he was callous, and probably closer to criminally negligent in not reporting the accident in a timely manner. If he was proven to be drunk.. he was and is guilty of Vehicular Manslaughter.

I don't dispute that...If he was'nt drunk it probably wouldn't have happened. If he wasn't a Kennedy the outcome and consequences would have been very different. That he escaped consequence through wealth and priviledge.

So on that point I suppose you agree with me... and I intend to use it in other discussion. America is not equal in its disbursement of Justice and equality.

I was 10 years old at the time... so don't link my political leanings with the accident. When I came home from the Military , he was already entrenched in the Congress. And as you may know... he basically runs unopposed here. There has been a token Repug (thats my replacement acronym for Neo-con) here and there but noone has ever seriously given him trouble.

You ever heard this one? When Ted Kennedy Commutes to work from the Cape to Boston he likes to use a Submarine so he can wave to his Girlfriends!