TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- New Bankruptcy Legislation

New Bankruptcy Legislation

quote:

Proposed Law on Bankruptcy Has Loophole By GRETCHEN MORGENSON Published: March 2, 2005 The bankruptcy legislation being debated by the Senate is intended to make it harder for people to walk away from their credit card and other debts. But legal specialists say the proposed law leaves open an increasingly popular loophole that lets wealthy people protect substantial assets from creditors even after filing for bankruptcy. The loophole involves the use of so-called asset protection trusts. For years, wealthy people looking to keep their money out of the reach of domestic creditors have set up these trusts offshore. But since 1997, lawmakers in five states - Alaska, Delaware, Nevada, Rhode Island and Utah - have passed legislation exempting assets held domestically in such trusts from the federal bankruptcy code. People who want to establish trusts do not have to reside the five states; they need only set their trust up through an institution in one of them. "If the bankruptcy legislation currently being rushed through the Senate gets enacted, debtors won't need to buy houses in Florida or Texas to keep their millions," said Elena Marty-Nelson, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., referring to generous homestead exemptions in those states. "The millionaire's loophole that is the result of these trusts needs to be closed." Yesterday in Washington, Republicans in the Senate beat back the first in a series of Democratic amendments aimed at softening the effects of the bankruptcy bill on military personnel, and the majority leader of the House vowed to get quick approval of the bill if the Senate did not significantly alter it. "We will grab hold of it just like we did class action if it is a good and clean bankruptcy reform bill," said Representative Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, referring to the quick action the House took last month on a measure limiting class-action lawsuits. The Senate bill is favored by banks, credit card companies and retailers, who say it is now too easy for consumers to erase their debts through bankruptcy. It is almost identical to previous versions that have been introduced in Congress, unsuccessfully, since 1998. Perhaps because the current bill was written so long ago, some legal authorities say, it does not address the new state laws that have allowed asset protection trusts to flourish. "This is just a way for rich folks to be able to slip through the noose on bankruptcy, and, of course, the double irony here is that the proponents of this bill keep pressing it as designed to eliminate abuse," said Elizabeth Warren, a law professor at Harvard Law School. "Yet when provisions that permit real abuse by rich people are pointed out, the bill's proponents look the other way." Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican, is the main sponsor of the bankruptcy bill. His press secretary, Beth Levine, said the senator's staff was unaware of the trusts and the loophole for the wealthy that they represented. "The senator is always open to suggestions for closing these loopholes," she said. Money held in asset protection trusts can elude creditors because federal bankruptcy law exempts assets governed by "applicable nonbankruptcy law." Intended to preserve rights to property under state law, the exemption makes it difficult for creditors to get hold of assets that they would not be able to seize through a nonbankruptcy proceeding in state court. Asset protection trusts have become increasingly popular in recent years among physicians, who fear large medical malpractice awards, and corporate executives, whose assets are at greater peril now because of new laws. The Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, for example, requires chief executives and chief financial officers to certify that their companies' financial statements are accurate; anyone who knowingly certifies false numbers can be fined up to $5 million. In addition, under Sarbanes-Oxley, executives may have to reimburse their companies for bonuses or other incentive compensation they received if their company's financial reports have to be restated in later years.

Source


Republicans once again helping the ordinary Americans that they claim Democrats are so out of touch with. Oh, and Democrats don't support the troops either, though in today's debate:

quote:

The Senate rejected Tuesday an effort backed by Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., to exempt service members from some of the tighter bankruptcy restrictions Congress is considering.Instead, the Senate approved a Republican-backed amendment that Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said is not good enough. "Is it too much to ask to give them a break if the bottom falls out while they're serving America?" Durbin said. ... "It's just not right (that) those who we have called upon to make the ultimate physical sacrifice -- loss of life or limb -- should also be forced to make the ultimate financial sacrifice," Bayh said. (Emphasis added.)

Nice, looks like the soldiers & sailors act is going to be overturned after more than 60 years.

Re: New Bankruptcy Legislation

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Source Republicans once again helping the ordinary Americans that they claim Democrats are so out of touch with. Oh, and Democrats don't support the troops either, though in today's debate: Nice, looks like the soldiers & sailors act is going to be overturned after more than 60 years.

What what what? Republicans pissing on our military? Say it ain't so!

Seriously, this is another pretty big issue that the Dems. SHOULD stand up against. The trouble is they won't. This almost got passed back in '02 with a majority of Senate Dems. in favor had it not been for a last minute slip in the bill pertaining to abortion or something. This is unfortunately one of those issues where the corporate interests, or more specifically credit card corporate interests have successfully lobbied and continue to pull the strings for both sides of the aisle. Barring any last minute unrelated piggy-back bills, unfortunately this one will likely pass.

Well, f*ck. Hope W has enough sense to veto the damn thing, but don't count on it since they've been pissing away the rights of soldiers and sailors ever since the war started.


[[[smoke]]]

Krugman on the bankruptcy bill, and why the Dems. shouldn't even think of voting for it:

quote:

The Debt-Peonage Society By PAUL KRUGMAN Today the Senate is expected to vote to limit debate on a bill that toughens the existing bankruptcy law, probably ensuring the bill's passage. A solid bloc of Republican senators, assisted by some Democrats, has already voted down a series of amendments that would either have closed loopholes for the rich or provided protection for some poor and middle-class families. The bankruptcy bill was written by and for credit card companies, and the industry's political muscle is the reason it seems unstoppable. But the bill also fits into the broader context of what Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale, calls "risk privatization": a steady erosion of the protection the government provides against personal misfortune, even as ordinary families face ever-growing economic insecurity. The bill would make it much harder for families in distress to write off their debts and make a fresh start. Instead, many debtors would find themselves on an endless treadmill of payments. The credit card companies say this is needed because people have been abusing the bankruptcy law, borrowing irresponsibly and walking away from debts. The facts say otherwise. 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. To the extent that there is significant abuse of the system, it's concentrated among the wealthy - including corporate executives found guilty of misleading investors - who can exploit loopholes in the law to protect their wealth, no matter how ill-gotten. 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. None of this should come as a surprise: it's all part of the pattern. As Mr. Hacker and others have documented, over the past three decades the lives of ordinary Americans have become steadily less secure, and their chances of plunging from the middle class into acute poverty ever larger. Job stability has declined; spells of unemployment, when they happen, last longer; fewer workers receive health insurance from their employers; fewer workers have guaranteed pensions. Some of these changes are the result of a changing economy. But the underlying economic trends have been reinforced by an ideologically driven effort to strip away the protections the government used to provide. For example, long-term unemployment has become much more common, but unemployment benefits expire sooner. Health insurance coverage is declining, but new initiatives like health savings accounts (introduced in the 2003 Medicare bill), rather than discouraging that trend, further undermine the incentives of employers to provide coverage. Above all, of course, at a time when ever-fewer workers can count on pensions from their employers, the current administration wants to phase out Social Security. The bankruptcy bill fits right into this picture. When everything else goes wrong, Americans can still get a measure of relief by filing for bankruptcy - and rising insecurity means that they are forced to do this more often than in the past. But Congress is now poised to make bankruptcy law harsher, too. Warren Buffett recently made headlines by saying America is more likely to turn into a "sharecroppers' society" than an "ownership society." But I think the right term is a "debt peonage" society - after the system, prevalent in the post-Civil War South, in which debtors were forced to work for their creditors. The bankruptcy bill won't get us back to those bad old days all by itself, but it's a significant step in that direction. And any senator who votes for the bill should be ashamed. E-mail: [email protected] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/o...print&position=

Democratic Senator Joe Biden (DE) will likely vote for this bill, unfortunately. There's no mystery to his actions - many credit card companies enjoy their residency in his state, and have paid him well.

Abortion amendment coming into play, once again

Let's see if this will chase off some Republican Senators. It worked to chase them off in '02, it should scare them off again:

quote:

A nine-year campaign by the finance industry for a crackdown on personal bankruptcies may hinge on two votes today on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The first will come on what may seem like a side issue: an amendment barring antiabortion activists from using bankruptcy to escape penalties for damages they cause at abortion clinics. If the amendment passes, abortion opponents in the House may block the bill, as they have in past years. If the amendment fails, the second key vote will come on a petition to end debate and bring the bill to a final vote. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/p...ner=rssuserland

Bastards. The bill passed 69/31.

Dems voting with the bill:

Lieberman, Nelson and Nelson, Biden, Carper, Stabenow, Salazar, Kohl, Lincoln, Pryor, Landrieu, Byrd, Conrad, Johnson

Byrd? That's a shocker. Salazar's already pinning himself to be a moderate conservative - but then again he has his constituents and state to answer to.

Lieberman and Nelson - just fucking stop beating around the bush and put a fucking big ass "R" by your name, will you FFS?!?

It truly amazes me how they, including almost all Republican Senators, can support bankruptcy privledges for violent domestic terrorists but not for the military men and women fighting terrorism abroad.

And the MSM is noticeably silent on this whole debacle. Anyone else notice this?

quote:

And any senator who votes for the bill should be ashamed.

i didn't know the word "shame" has ever existed in the vocabulary of the world of politicians...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Bastards. The bill passed 69/31. Dems voting with the bill: Lieberman, Nelson and Nelson, Biden, Carper, Stabenow, Salazar, Kohl, Lincoln, Pryor, Landrieu, Byrd, Conrad, Johnson Byrd? That's a shocker. Salazar's already pinning himself to be a moderate conservative - but then again he has his constituents and state to answer to. Lieberman and Nelson - just fucking stop beating around the bush and put a fucking big ass "R" by your name, will you FFS?!? It truly amazes me how they, including almost all Republican Senators, can support bankruptcy privledges for violent domestic terrorists but not for the military men and women fighting terrorism abroad. And the MSM is noticeably silent on this whole debacle. Anyone else notice this?

Well covering a story that actually has some impact in the lives of everyday Americans just can't fit in anywhere between war on terror reports, Martha Stewart and Michael Jackson.

Does anyone remember when the Gore/Lieberman ticket was called "too liberal" by some people outside the John Birch society? At least Gore grew out that beard and wised up after, actually moving to the left. Lieberman at least did sign onto the "dear colleague" letter on social security, but this is one bad bill for the average joe and G.I. joe.

Caught this over at Atrios. You know this bill is bad when the overall sentiments in freeperland tend to side with Krugman:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1358749/posts

FUCK ME!!!

My fucking DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN, Dennis Moore just signed a letter to Denny Hastert asking for immediate passage of this bill!

What the hell is goin' on here?:

quote:

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert Speaker U.S. House of Representatives H-232, The Capitol Washington, DC 20515 Dear Mr. Speaker: We write to encourage you to bring bankruptcy reform legislation to the House floor as soon as the Senate completes its consideration of the bill. The New Democrat Coalition has backed common sense bankruptcy reform in the past and helped in passing the bankruptcy reform bill by overwhelming margins in the House of Representatives during the 108th Congress. Over the last several years, we have worked to advance reasonable and balanced legislation that would require individuals who have the ability to repay their debts to do so, while preserving the important safety net of bankruptcy under Chapter 7 for those who truly need it. We believe that responsible bankruptcy reform embodies the New Democrat principle of personal responsibility, while at the same time adding important new consumer protections such as requiring enhanced credit card disclosure information and encouraging participation in consumer credit counseling. It is our hope that the House of Representatives will consider this important piece of legislation in an expedited manner. We stand ready to work with you and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass bankruptcy reform into law. Sincerely, Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher Rep. Adam Smith Rep. Ron Kind Rep. Artur Davis Rep. Carolyn McCarthy Rep. John Larson Rep. Stephanie Herseth Rep. Dennis Moore Rep. Mike McIntyre Rep. Joe Crowley Rep. Jay Israel Rep. David Wu Rep. Diane Hooley Rep. Melissa Bean Rep. Jim Davis Rep. Harold E. Ford, Jr. Rep. Ed Case Rep. Jay Inslee Rep. Shelley Berkeley Rep. Gregory W. Meeks http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/8/23562/72167

As Steve Soto states:

quote:

Would it be too much to ask these Democrats to explain: *Why over 50% of those who declare bankruptcy due to the failure of the current healthcare system when experiencing a major medical situation are not part of those who deserve a safety net? *Why they believe that interest rates over 30% are legitimate and fair charges for those already struggling? *Why those who are victims of identity fraud should not be protected from the credit card companies? *Why our service personnel should not be cut some slack when they are serving? *Why the very rich are exempt from these stringent rules? Are the rich the ones who truly need the safety net?

This is ridiculous...

Added in Edit I already know the answer to my question, Conservatives, so you need not answer it - this is at the very heart of the continuing problem with the Democrats, or shall I say the "New"/Centrist/Carville/NewRepublic/anti-Dean/anti-grassrooters/whatever Democrats.

If they're not sucking up to their own special interest groups, they're attempting to break bread with Republicans who do nothing but eventually spit it right back into their faces.

If the Democrats are ever going to win back anything, THEY NEED TO STICK TO A MESSAGE AND NEVER, EVER DEVIATE FROM THAT. If they contend that they are all for the lower and middle class, then they need to fucking stick to that at all times. This particular bill is a major case in point in hurting the lower and middle class while leaving a gaping loophole for the wealthy.

This is why the Democrats are continuing to get their clocks cleaned.

The Republicans have developed in lockstep fashion a machine that stays on point, EVEN if that message is erroneous or misleading at times. They stick to what they say and they repeat it over and over so it gets into the minds of the public. And even if that message is misleading, the public majority ends up appreciating the fact that they do not falter from their message.

The public wants conviction, even at the expense of logic or evidence.

Understand this, Dems. Learn it. Live it. AND FUCKING DO IT, or you're toast, period.

/rant

quote:

Sincerely, Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher Rep. Adam Smith Rep. Ron Kind Rep. Artur Davis Rep. Carolyn McCarthy Rep. John Larson Rep. Stephanie Herseth Rep. Dennis Moore Rep. Mike McIntyre Rep. Joe Crowley Rep. Jay Israel Rep. David Wu Rep. Diane Hooley Rep. Melissa Bean Rep. Jim Davis Rep. Harold E. Ford, Jr. Rep. Ed Case Rep. Jay Inslee Rep. Shelley Berkeley Rep. Gregory W. Meeks http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/8/23562/72167

Well Adam Smith probably thinks the invisible hand will take care of people. (Sorry, bad economist joke)

Melissa Bean might as well have let Phil Crane keep the seat she just won from him here in IL.

I work with bankruptcy law and speaking in very general terms, the problem isn't people filing for bankrtupcy, the whole point of it is for people is to catch up and pay creditors depending on the chapter. In terms of mortgages, it's very rare that a lender will lose their interest in a house, the credit card companies may lose, but while bankruptcy was up 17% in 2003, CC companies posted 176% profit. The problem is really people trying to get back into bankruptcy when they are released or when a specific creditor is given permission to start collecting again. Judges have the ability to bar these people from refiling for a certain period of time, which could have simply been extended as a way to reform the system.

The most ridiculous part of all is "universal default." Charging people default interest on a credit card that was paid on time because their completely unrelated gas bill wasn't paid is insane. They argue that the person is a potential risk so they have to protect themselves by charging up to 20%+ interest? Yep, I'm sure it will be easier to pay next month when they'll have less money because of paying unwarranted charges.

This isn't about personal responsibility, it's not just that 50% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, when you include divorce and the loss of employment, it makes up almost 90% of all bankruptcies. These are mostly responsible people who had an unexpected increase in bills or recent loss of income and the whole point of bankruptcy is to give them the ability to read just and make payments.

yes this pretty shameful legislation that will benefit creditors but at a greater cost to american society and is a good example of the reach of money influence in washington.

Thought I responded to this before. Anyhow, f*ck you can't repeal the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act without f*cking every soldier serving overseas at the moment, and that's a whole bunch of them at the moment. Who is the moron behind repealing this so I can start blasting e-mails?


[[[smoke]]]

I haven't read much on it but it does look like both sides of the fence aren't very happy about it...

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Thought I responded to this before. Anyhow, f*ck you can't repeal the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act without f*cking every soldier serving overseas at the moment, and that's a whole bunch of them at the moment. Who is the moron behind repealing this so I can start blasting e-mails? [[[smoke]]]

Not sre yet what the outcome of this will be. From how Bayh was talking it looked like current soldiers would also be affected, though the House still has to pass legislation and hopefully that'll be changed if this is the case. I know for certain that the proposed exemption for veterans was denied and they will be liable.

Background on Biden's Ties to Credit Card Co.

As far as I'm concerned, Biden can kiss his 2008 hopes goodbye. His credibility is shot for good. Follow the money.....

quote:

Biden's been carrying MBNA's water on this issue for years. In 2000, when the plan was effectively stalled because a real Democrat named Bill Clinton was in the White House, he even tried to attach the bankruptcy changes to a foreign aid bill. Why is Biden such a big fan. Those less cynical than us might argue that, well, MBNA does employ a lot of people in Selaware. True -- but could it also be because MBNA is Biden's biggest contributor -- by a good margin. According to Opensecrets.org, Biden raised some $147,700 in contributions from MBNA employees from 1999-2004, his biggest source of campaign cash. Who is that in second? A law firm named Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young Jones & Weintraub, which gave $127,625 over the same period. And who are they, might one ask? Pachulski Stang is the nation's largest bankruptcy law firm with one of the most highly regarded bankrupty practices in the country. The firm's client list includes some of the biggest names in the entertainment industry as well as many of the most well-known businesses in the world. While we're at it, guess who Tom Carper's biggest donor is. By now, you should be shocked to learn that his No. 1 contributor is also MBNA Corp. at $127,447, dwarfing the next closest donor. But let's return to Biden, shall we? If you're not troubled by campaign contributions, there's more. Eyebrows were raised in 1996 when Biden sold his house for $1.2 million -- his asking price and more than a couple of a similar neighboring homes went for around the same time -- to an MBNA executive named John Cochran. In 2003, the New York Times reported this: The company also has ties to Senator Biden's son, R. Hunter Biden, a lawyer in Washington. Hunter Biden joined MBNA as a management trainee after graduating from Yale Law School and rose to be an executive vice president. Now a partner in Oldaker, Biden & Belair, a lobbying and law firm, he receives a $100,000 annual retainer from MBNA to advise it on "the Internet and privacy law," Mr. Freeh said. He added that Hunter Biden was not a registered lobbyist and did not lobby on legislation for the company. This is a perfect example of what has killed democracy in this country - money from corporations that funds the careers of our congressmen and our executive. The result is there for all to see - laws that favor special interests and corporations at the expense of we, the people. We have all but completly lost control over this government. It does not respond to our demands, to our needs, to our reality. Do I even need to remind you that this is not what the founders intended? http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/att...ves/001551.html

Corporate interests knows no partisan lines (though they are clearly more in the Red than the Blue boundaries).

One other point I found interesting is an article I can't find which depicts the top 10 States that filed bankruptcy per capita.

Guess how many of those top 10 states were Red states?
(hint: >9).

S 256 passed.

A little too late:

http://www.consumerlaw.org/initiati...etterS256.shtml

quote:

February 28, 2005 Dear Senator: The National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low income clients, writes to express our strong opposition to S.256, the "Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005." This bill would hurt many Americans who are facing financial problems due to job loss, transition to lower paying jobs, divorce, child-rearing, lack of medical insurance, or predatory lending practices. Although the economy has improved recently for some American families, there are millions of other families that continue to struggle. In fact, real incomes have declined since 1989 for the lowest sixty percent of the American population -- including especially single parent households. S.256 contains a shocking number of provisions which would have a severe impact on families who desperately need to preserve their homes from foreclosure and their cars from repossession, or to focus their income on reasonable and necessary support for dependent children. Here are just a few things the bill's sponsors have failed to discuss: * The key cause of the increase in bankruptcies is surely that more families owe more money. The amount of consumer credit outstanding increased from 789 billion dollars in 1990 to 1.7 trillion dollars in 2001. During this time, there was a steady increase in the amount of debt payments American families made as a percentage of their disposable income. Although the total number of bankruptcies has increased, the number of bankruptcies in relation to the amount of credit outstanding has actually gone down. * A big part of the equation is that some segments of the credit industry, such as credit card companies, make huge profits from lending to American families who cannot afford to pay big card balances and who therefore pay interest on those balances at rates of 29 percent or higher. It is not surprising that when the credit industry sends three billion credit card solicitations each year, they reach some significant portion of American families who will ultimately have financial problems. * The journal Health Affairs recently published a path-breaking joint study by researchers at Harvard Law School and Harvard Medical School that reveals alarming information about the medical causes of bankruptcy. The researchers found that illness and medical bills contributed to at least 46.2%, and as many as 54.5% of all bankruptcy filings. Families with children were especially hard hit - about 700,000 children lived in families that declared bankruptcy in the aftermath of serious medical problems. * Cutting down the number of bankruptcy filings will not result in savings for the credit industry or for other consumers. The vast majority of debt discharged in bankruptcy would not be paid back in any event, since the debtors involved simply cannot afford to pay. A number of studies have shown that the "means test" will raise little in new money for creditors. S.256 contains a variety of poorly conceived provisions which are discussed in more detail in our paper entitled, "What's Wrong with S. 256, Let Us Count the Ways ...". If enacted, S.256 would: * Subject debtors to a "means test" that fails to screen for abuse and instead penalizes honest debtors by imposing additional costs and filing burdens. * Create a "safe harbor" from the means test for low-income debtors, but still subject them to increased costs and filing requirements. * Require stricter scrutiny of low-income debtors' expenses in chapter 13 than higher income debtors and make some debtors too rich for chapter 7 and too poor for chapter 13. * Erode bankruptcy's fresh start by making more debts nondischargeable in both chapters 7 and 13. * Promote predatory lending by encouraging creditors to take liens on household goods of nominal value. * Create new creditor opportunities for reaffirmation abuses by weakening current debtor protections and giving creditors safe harbor from liability. * Undermine debtors' ability to save homes and cars in chapter 13. * Drastically reduce fundamental protections afforded debtors under the automatic stay. * Provide vast new opportunities for identity theft and other privacy invasion by making public tax returns and sensitive financial documents of consumers who file bankruptcy. As an organization which represents poor people, the National Consumer Law Center vehemently disputes the credit industry position that S.256 will not hurt low-income debtors. It is precisely those debtors who would be hurt the most. The myriad new procedural requirements together with the dozens of provisions which give creditors an opportunity to pursue new types of litigation against debtors will raise the cost of bankruptcy for all debtors. Other provisions will take away important rights under current bankruptcy law to save homes from foreclosure and evictions, and to challenge predatory lending practices. Now is not the time to cut back on the availability of a system which provides a second chance to the unfortunate in the form of a fresh financial start. Sincerely, Willard P. Ogburn Executive Director John Rao Attorney

U.S. Senate Supports Identity Theft:

quote:

Often times, when you get your identity stolen, it destroys your credit and your entire finances. That�s why two days later Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida introduced legislation to exempt debtors from tougher bankruptcy laws if their financial problems were caused by identity theft. But in a Senate apparently owned by credit card companies and banks, it was voted down by a wide margin. Consider how disgusting that really is (beyond the truly unfathomable fact that the Senate didn't even care about its own staff members): Your bank can be responsible for losing your personal information and having your identity stolen, and then, when you are faced with the financial consequences of identity theft, your bank can actually use the situation to milk you for more money, because you now have almost no bankruptcy protections

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 U.S. Senate Supports Identity Theft:

Considering that it takes approximately 5 years worth of work to remove items from one's credit that resulted from idnetity theft, you'd think bankruptcy protection might be a good thing to have, rather than losing your house or car based on bills you never even charged. This bill is not in the interest of even one single American citizen, outside of politicians who gained heavy political contributions for supporting it. Bye bye Joe Biden '08 campaign.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I haven't read much on it but it does look like both sides of the fence aren't very happy about it...

those with well paying govt jobs seem to not worry|

why is it that these people don't get into high power government seats with the intention to help the people who got them there? I would feel like an assmonkey if I fucked over the people i worked for. I say every TA who's got half a brain and wants to help run for senate or some shit. Just find someway to eliminate the pressure politcal leaders feel from contributors. I dunno just eliminate the option for political leaders to accept funds from anyone other than the taxes taken from the people.

quote:

Originally posted by altoid why is it that these people don't get into high power government seats with the intention to help the people who got them there? I would feel like an assmonkey if I fucked over the people i worked for. I say every TA who's got half a brain and wants to help run for senate or some shit. Just find someway to eliminate the pressure politcal leaders feel from contributors. I dunno just eliminate the option for political leaders to accept funds from anyone other than the taxes taken from the people.

still running for govt is about having the most money, and bending over the most to whomever a) has the most controversial issue and b) has the most money.

yea! freedom for the commonfolk!!

cripes, even the soldiers are getting fucked, isnt anyone paying attention?|

Someone call John McCain & Russ Feingold. We've got to pass real campaign finance reform laws!

Bankrupt no more: Congress passes bankruptcy bill

Where are those US flag waving, "Support our Troops" bumper sticker ribbon posting idiots now.

Especially now that this bill is pretty much in the bag once W signs it.



Move along now. There's nothing to see here people. Get back in your homes. Everything is under control.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.