3/9     To the person who ranted about having been owed money and trying to
        collect:  I've loaned people money in the past, but only to people
        I had reason to trust to be able to pay it back.  I haven't been
        burned yet.  The credit card companies seem to want to skip that little
        piece of the puzzle.  They have predatory lending practices, and they've
        finally been able to pour enough money into congress to give them
        rule over those they snare.  Of course you can reject credit, cut up
        your cards, and trim down your consumption to live within your means,
        but as a general rule americans don't.  There's nothing in this bill
        to address foolish lending practices.  All the "blame" is put on the
        consumer.  Indentured servitude was as bad then as it is now.
        \_ It's quite apparent that you A) don't own any real estate and
           B) You've never been in business. If you've never been shafted
           by a deadbeat then you've probably never done any real business
           before. Unfortunately the real world is quite different from
           your ivory tower fantasies, and people lie, cheat and steal.
           When you're running a business over an extended period of time
           you'll eventually meet people like these, and you'll eventually
           have to deal with them. Let's face it folks, you can't attribute
           a 360% increase in BKs to anything other than consumer
           incompetence. Let's stop blaming everyone else for the problem
           and address the real issue, people have to stop incurring
           so much damn debt. As for the credit card companies (and
           for that matter banks) , I say we highly regulate them in
           return for the legislation they want past. That'll make it
           even on both sides of the fence.
           \_ Lenient bankruptcy rules ENCOURAGE entrepreneurship.  You can
              take the risk without having to worry about being completely
              destitute and indebted for life if things go south.  Btw, do you
              have a source for the 360% number you keep spouting?
              \_ Yes, it was on the linked page of the first post, so unless
                 you want to get irritated by the OP of the first post
                 bemoaning the bill, don't even go there.
                 Read the archive to get all the numbers. If you don't read the
                 fucking links then why do you even fucking comment? The
                 time period was measured from around 1984 to around 2000.
                 Also, encouring entrepreneurship this way is highly
                 questionable. Apparently you either have an exceedingly
                 short term memory or are just dumb. Ever heard of the dot-com
                 bubble?
                 \_ tell me, what happened to all those dot coms that declared
                    bankruptcy?  Did they have to pay money to everyone they
                    fradulently issued stock options to?  Did the CEOs have
                    to give back their multi-million dollar salaries?  -tom
                    \_ CEOs defrauding companies of money should have had to
                       give it back.  CEOs using legal loopholes for large
                       salaries?  Change the law, that's what it's there for.
                       As for options, same as above, if they were issued
                       under the letter of the law, nobody forced anyone to
                       work for a .com.  I see where you're coming from, but
                       .coms with all the associated stupidity and greed are
                       not a good example.  -John
           \_ of course, it's totally fine for *businesses* to run up huge
              debts and bilk their employees and investors while the board
              members earn multi-million-dollar salaries and golden parachutes.
                -tom
           \_ speaking of americans running up huge damn debts, what's the
              per-taxpayer federal debt at now?  $30,000?  More?
              \_ http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock  26,000 is thier quote,
                 it scares me all the time that the US owes THAT much money.
                 I don't see how that can ever be paid back. -mrauser
        \_ More importantly the person ranting about the increase in
           bankrupcies was missing a key point.  Bankrupcies have gone
           up at the same time that saftey nets have gone away.  The vast
           majority of cases (I seem to remember 70% but can't look it up
           right now) are caused by a family member getting ill.  Boom, one
           \_ Sorry, you're wrong, it's around 40-50%, lower, but still not
              good.
           serious illness and you are fucked if you don't have GOOD health
           insurance.  Fucking over people who are already fucked won't fix
           a thing.  It's like treating AIDS by covering up those unsightly
           skin blemishes with foundation.
           \_ No, this is at best a red herring. Should debtors get away
              with debt because of XYZ circumstance? Then everyone will
              claim XYZ circumstance. The health care system is very broken,
              that's a given. However, a broken health care system shouldn't
              be an excuse for people to get out of debt easily. Anyway,
              people in the past used to get ill, probably at a higher
              rate than they do now. Granted, healthcare costs have
              skyrocketted in relation (another reason why we should institute
              government healthcare like every other civilized nation on
              the planet, hell, cuba has better health coverage than the
              U.S.), but if consumers weren't already neck deep in debt.
              BKs are caused by one simple fact, people are already
              overextended. If people were to save instead of continuing
              to spend at their current levels the number of BKs will go
              down dramatically, regardless of whether a person in the family
              gets sick or not. And FYI, yes, I've gone through the terminally
              ill family member bit myself, so I know firsthand what's involved.
                \_ No I'm saying the reason the number of bankrupcies have
                   gone up is because of the lack of support services, not
                   because people are lazy and just don't care and want the
                   easy way out.  People were making that argument yesterday
                   and it is bullshit.  As for credit card companies they
                   make tons of money by charging obscene intrest rates to
                   people who use their services.  Presumably those interest
                   rates are so high to make up for defaulters.
                   \_ I agree with you on the credit card companies. I think
                      that they should be heavily regulated. Banks are heavily
                      regulated, credit card companies should likewise be
                      heavily regulated. I find what credit card companies
                      do to be despicable, and some of their direct mail
                      ploys border on fraud.
                      \_ Yes, because credit card companies are not
                         regulated at all right now and most credit cards
                         are not issued by banks anyway.
                \_ You theory that people will save instead of spend just
                   because of the new bankruptcy law is naive and silly.
                   \_ If it's more difficult to bail yourself out through
                      bankruptcy, then there is a less of an incentive to
                      file. If there is less of an incentive to file, less
                      people would get into the situation in the first place.
                      If you actually read the bankruptcy overhaul, it throws
                      out the "clean slate" and forces people to pay back
                      their debt. Obviously it's a credit card/retailer/
                      business driven bill. However, the central issue here
                      isn't necessarily the bill, it's the fact that too many
                      people are taking on too much debt. The bill itself
                      forces people to own up to their debts, a good thing
                      in general. It obviously only addresses one side of the
                      coin, for obvious reasons. The other side of the issue
                      is regulating creditors and their exceedingly deceptive
                      marketing practices.
                      \_ the bill is stupid.  why residence is protected even
                         if it's a multimillion dollar house.  People with
                         a multimillion dollar house should take out a home
                         equity loan to pay their bills.  it's obviously
                         designed to protect rich people.  As it is,
                         bankruptcy laws are enough to make one's life
                         miserable enough.  If people aren't bright enough
                         to know not to spend beyond their means, I doubt
                         they will be bright enough to distinguish between
                         current law and the new bill.
                         \_ I swear, I need to smack you people on the MOTD
                            on the head. READ THE FUCKING BILL BEFORE
                            COMMENTING. If you read it you would know
                            there's a fucking provision to limit the
                            homestead protection to a max of $125,000.
                            This would eliminate homestead states such
                            as TX. This obviously is designed to catch
                            rich cheats trying to get out of paying massive
                            debts. If you don't read the goddamn bill,
                            don't goddamn comment on it.
                            \_ Okay.  Smack in head deserved, but how about
                               this:
"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."
        "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."
         \_ ^only the little people pay taxes^only the little people get
             fucked when they declare bankruptcy.  Those senators are probably
             thinking, "hey if I file I better get to hide all my asetts
             cuz I'm rich, bitch!"