New Bankruptcy Law takes effect Oct 1st.

[Patroklos]

No, I don't think it should be left at that. You want out of the health care discusion because you know all the facts are not in your favor. We get horrible results dispite spending the most per person on health care in the world. Our system is fundimentally broken because we pay to much and large sections of our population get no coverage at all.

No O, I want out because this is a thread about bankruptcy laws not universal health care.


Looks to me you want out of the bankruptcy discussion for having a n indefensible position.

[Imran Siddiqui]

ZING!

[Dinner]

Except this doesn't increase the savings rate does it? If our goal is to increase the savins rate then we can give people tax incentives to do so.

Why isn't the GOP just loves tax incentives until its time to help out the poor or middle class then they suddenly find some way to screw the lower classes?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Theben


You agreed with KH earlier and his & your reasoning was basically "it's good for them."

The US needs to learn to tighten its belt.

A persistent 5% current account deficit is merely one of the symptoms of a nation living off credit. Anything which forces people to take their debts more seriously is a step in the right direction.

Is what I said.

I don't see any moral judgment contained here. I have great fear as to what will happen if the US continues its spendthrift ways.

[Dinner]

If spending is the issue then the US government should start first by cutting extra spending. You know the billions in welfare to farmers and corporations, the hundreds of billions of welfare for defense contractors, thetax loop holes for the rich.

The average citizen's bank balance can be adjusted via a forced savings plan, by tax credits, and by adjusting the rules which allow easy credit or 120% morgage refinancing. Simply making it so people can't declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debt is not the anwser.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The US needs to learn to tighten its belt.

Spoken like someone who lives where's there's universal health care. The US doesn't. Historically, over half of all US bankruptcies are a result of medical bills.

Of course, with Katrina and now Rita, most bankruptcies will now be storm related.

[Dinner]

They better hurry up and declare because they only have a week left before they are royally screwed.

[Zkribbler]

Ready for the twist of the screw? The new law is much stricter on backing up bankruptcy claims with documentation.

I wonder if they'll take a large block of soggy paper??

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Spoken like someone who lives where's there's universal health care. The US doesn't. Historically, over half of all US bankruptcies are a result of medical bills.

a) I currently live in Baltimore City
b) Yes, I agree that universal health care is intertwined with this
c) There's still far too much overall consumer spending in the US. The savings rate is basically nil or negative (quite negative if we discount the runup in housing prices). Those savings need to come out of the consumer spending. Easy credit and a careless attitude toward personal indebtedness is what drives much of the consumer spending. This fundamental attitude problem needs to disappear for there to be a long-term solution to the US' schizoid economic problems.

[asleepathewheel]

from what I've seen personally of bankruptcies, they mostly do include medical bills. And car bills. And credit card bills. etc etc. One has to wonder if the person could perhaps have avoided bankruptcy if they spent or saved their money more responsibly. A 10k medical bill is managable. a 10k medical bill when you already have 10k in credit debt and 15k in car loans and you have issues.

I like the bankruptcy reform, generally speaking. I'm tired of seeing these redneck *******s spend spend spend then declare bankruptcy because they weren't financially responsible, knowing that they could get out of most of their bills thanks to the govt . Should I buy that 2006 truck or buy that 1996 truck and save the money in case something goes wrong with me. Oh, and thanks for making my rates go up, jackass.

[Odin]

We do have a spending problem in this country (mostly as a result of a degenerate culture that pushes conspicous consuption and "keeping up with the Jonses", as well as equating material goods as a sign of sucess and status), but that has nothing to do with bankruptcy. As Che said, bankruptcy carries a social stigma of failure, and is rarely used for run-of -the-mill debt problems for that reason. Yes, there are a few isolated scumbags who take advantage of the system, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse to screw over people who got screwed over by life (or an atrocious healthcare system).

[Odin]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
from what I've seen personally of bankruptcies, they mostly do include medical bills. And car bills. And credit card bills. etc etc. One has to wonder if the person could perhaps have avoided bankruptcy if they spent or saved their money more responsibly. A 10k medical bill is managable. a 10k medical bill when you already have 10k in credit debt and 15k in car loans and you have issues.

Blaming individuals for a problem that is a result of a f*cked up material wealth = status society:

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS


This is a good change. A good law. The only wrinkle that I see is catastrophic health care.

That is a very ignorant thing to say. How can forclosing on every asset a poor person has including their house and their car yet still insisiting they pay the full original price of the car be good? If the creditor is so piss poor that they give credit to any joe blow then they have a responsibility to take a bath for their poor business judgement just as the borrower has a responsibility to have his credit trashed and not get any more credit.

That didn't happen though did it? Basically Creditors are free to be completely irresponsible and borrowers are the only ones on the hook. It is immorale to take away the car then legally require someone pay the full price of the car even after it has been taken from them. This is a BULL**** law designed to help the powerful and piss on the weak. If a lender has poor risk management practices there should be SOME risk they should be forced to shoulder. That isn't being done here. We are setting the country up for a speculative bubble with this law because banks can continue mailing $20k credit limits to welfare moms yet never face the music for their poor chooses. Only the poor are ever held accountable while corporations just never pay a penny. It needs to be a two way street. Banks need to be more careful to whom they lend.

[Odin]

Oerdin on a roll:

[Dinner]

It used to be the lender had a responsibility to cafefully decide who to lend to and who not to lend to. No one can make them lend their money and they are choosen who to lend to. Yet, in this age where literally people's dogs get mailed "ZERO PERCENT INTEREST" credit cards banks say it is not their fault that they lent to subprime customers and those subprime customers, predictably, went bankrupt. Imagine that; you loan to people who have a proven track record of not being able to manage their financies and then they declare bankruptcy.

It is a lie that borrowers are solely to blame. The other half of the truth is lenders haven't bothered to properly vet people and that's why you read about house cats getting mailed pre-approived credit cards with $10k limits. Lenders must have their feet held to the fire as well or else we will still end up with a speculative bubble. That hasn't happened though nor will it happen as long as these evil people are in charge. They only blame the poor and never the rich.