Bankruptcy Bill

[opebo]

Need any more proof both parties are right-wing?  The new bankruptcy bill, which robs poor people of the right to discharge debts through bankruptcy, is being supported by lots of Democrats:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050301/ap_on_go_co/bankruptcy

[RN]

I actually think people should be able to file bankrupty if they have to... if not they could have wages garnished, knocking them down financially even more.  And lets face it, lots of bankruptcies have to do with divorce, and not necessarily bad credit habits.

[Moooooo]

Someone correct me if Im wrong, but arent something like 60% of Bankruptcies filed due to backed up medical bill's?  I look at this bill as a "kick a man while hes down" type bill.

[opebo]

Yes, this bill is vicious.  The whole idea of 'unsecured' credit is that you don't necessarily have to pay it back - the lender is taking some risk on you.  It doesn't have some asset attached to make it safe for the lender - which one reason a house loan is 5%.

The reason credit cards have such absurdly high interest is that borrowers don't really have to pay them back - as it should be.  What this bill does is move us towards indentured servitude - where one can be forced to pay ones unsecured debts.

[Richard]

One should not be able to declare bankruptcy.  It is a form of stealing.  Pay your debts.  It is the right thing to do.

[opebo]

One should not be able to declare bankruptcy.  It is a form of stealing.  Pay your debts.  It is the right thing to do.

No, lending money is a risky activity - it is not the government's responsibility to remove risk from private business activity.

[Bogart]

Bankruptcy reform is long overdue.  There are lots of legitimate reasons for filing BK. There are also many, many more that aren't. Under current law, a person can file a Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 once each every seven years. I run a collection company and have worked in this industry for years. There are many people who file every seven years like clockwork. It's a legalized form of theft, really.

[Inverted Things]

Collections companies make a lot of money. Banks make a lot of money. Credit card companies make a lot of money. All despite the fact that anyone can declare bankrupcy and dissolve their debt.

Ethically, you can make an argument that bankrupcy should be reformed. I'm willing to agree that not paying back debts is unethical. I would also argue that kicking a man while he's down is unethical. I would also argue that the interest rates credit cards charge are unethical. I would argue that the fact that credit card companies have no grace period is unethical.

So, in my opinion, if you reform bankrupcy, you should also look at making new laws to regulate lenders.

[Richard]

You don't have to borrow money.  Don't like it?  Don't borrow.  Get another job, or create another job.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You don't have to borrow money.  Don't like it?  Don't borrow.  Get another job, or create another job.

Every unemployed person should create 10 jobs.


I was being sarcastic.

[opebo]

You don't have to borrow money.  Don't like it?  Don't borrow.  Get another job, or create another job.

The person in error in a bad loan is the lender - he made a foolish business decision.  Why should anyone else, or the State, care about that?

[The Dowager Mod]

did i see a part of this bill that will let them garnish social security?

[Richard]

You don't have to borrow money.  Don't like it?  Don't borrow.  Get another job, or create another job.

The person in error in a bad loan is the lender - he made a foolish business decision.  Why should anyone else, or the State, care about that?

No, the person in error is the person who took the money and ran.  You signed a contract to repay the loan.  The State should enforce that contract.

[opebo]

You don't have to borrow money.  Don't like it?  Don't borrow.  Get another job, or create another job.

The person in error in a bad loan is the lender - he made a foolish business decision.  Why should anyone else, or the State, care about that?

No, the person in error is the person who took the money and ran.  You signed a contract to repay the loan.  The State should enforce that contract.

I don't see the benefit of having the State take on this enormous and quite literally impossible (can't get blood from a stone) task.  People promise things all the time that later become economically unfeasible - corporations in particular.  How would you deal with a corporation that couldn't pay its debts?
 

[Richard]

You don't have to borrow money.  Don't like it?  Don't borrow.  Get another job, or create another job.

The person in error in a bad loan is the lender - he made a foolish business decision.  Why should anyone else, or the State, care about that?

No, the person in error is the person who took the money and ran.  You signed a contract to repay the loan.  The State should enforce that contract.

I don't see the benefit of having the State take on this enormous and quite literally impossible (can't get blood from a stone) task.  People promise things all the time that later become economically unfeasible - corporations in particular.  How would you deal with a corporation that couldn't pay its debts?
 

I don't support the existance of a corporation entity.  And it is hardly an "enormous" task.  It is simple.  The judge orders you to pay your debts, and you comply.

[opebo]

You don't have to borrow money.  Don't like it?  Don't borrow.  Get another job, or create another job.

The person in error in a bad loan is the lender - he made a foolish business decision.  Why should anyone else, or the State, care about that?

No, the person in error is the person who took the money and ran.  You signed a contract to repay the loan.  The State should enforce that contract.

I don't see the benefit of having the State take on this enormous and quite literally impossible (can't get blood from a stone) task.  People promise things all the time that later become economically unfeasible - corporations in particular.  How would you deal with a corporation that couldn't pay its debts?
 

I don't support the existance of a corporation entity.  And it is hardly an "enormous" task.  It is simple.  The judge orders you to pay your debts, and you comply.

This would be impossible, as the people in question have no money.  Most are unemployed, or employed at such low wages that every bit is consumed in providing subsistence.

[A18]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting coming from you. Why?

[Richard]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting coming from you. Why?

The corporate veil artificially separates responsibility from the person.  It encourages people to act in irresponsible and reckless ways.  Shareholders must have liability, and management must have unlimited liability on personal assets for their ups.

Obepo: The court can set a salary, say $30,000, after which 25% is automatically taken to repay former debts.