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!" |