Posted on 04/14/2005 5:32:21 PM PDT by atrocitor
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) – In a widely expected move, the House on Thursday approved a bankruptcy reform bill that has already passed the Senate.
The House vote virtually guarantees the bill will become law. Soon after the House vote, President Bush said in a statement that he would sign the bill. That could happen as early as next week.
The reform bill will make filing for bankruptcy more difficult, and it will give creditors more recourse in some instances.
So, experts say, if you were thinking about filing for bankruptcy to clear your debts, you might think twice -- or act twice as quickly, since major provisions go into effect six months after the bill is signed into law.
"The bill simply doesn't balance responsibility between families in debt trouble and the creditors whose practices have contributed to the rise in bankruptcies," said Travis Plunkett of the Consumer Federation of America in a written statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
I hate this Bill. I've been watching the banks and credit card companies lobbying for this for years. If you want to make money off of peoples misfortune and you are not already a credit card company entitled to charge usurious rates, start a credit counseling company. Debtors will be forced to hire and pay for your services.
If someone buys something from you, you have a right to be paid without having to go through hell to get your money. I thought we were Conservatives here?
agreed...however no American should suffer just because of stupidity
Why do people who are supposedly conservatives get so angry about having to pay their bills? Refusing to pay back borrowed money is theft, and should be treated as such. However, I expect to hear a lot of outraged whining about medical bills, interest rates, and credit cards coming in the mail.
"interest rates, and credit cards"
Well, I don't see any reason to call a potential interest rate (in the fine print) of something around 30% as anything else than a vig.
Billions of dollars in debt were contracted for by private parties (private borrower/private lender)over the past 9 years. Those debt contracts defacto incorporated the the terms of then existing bankruptcy code (last major code overhaul was in 1994). Now those contract terms on that pre-existing debt are being unilaterally changed ex post facto by the one of those private parties (the private lenders) in the favor of that party through the instrumentality of the state. What do you call that?
If the new bill did not apply to existing debt, but only to prospective debt, I would have much less of a problem with it.
"I thought we were Conservatives here?"
Changing centuries old law and principles based upon a constitutional right is "conservative?" Does that become "conservative" by act of credit card companies and banks giving a lot of money to politicians? Is that the test of conservatism, changing the law to increase its profits?
Bush will sign it in a flash. More "compassionate conservatism" from the corporate conservative lobbies.
It's usury, but who is forced to take out a credit card and charge huge amounts they can't pay back?
"Now those contract terms on that pre-existing debt are being unilaterally changed ex post facto by the one of those private parties (the private lenders) in the favor of that party through the instrumentality of the state. What do you call that?"
The fruits of bribery, aka "campaign contributions."
Aka, "moving the goal posts," which many here will tell you is a conservative principle.
It's unfair at a gut level, true. But the credit card companies have paid a lot of money to "conservative" think tanks to concoct "conservative" arguments for ideological cover. No studies about bankruptcy "abuse" this time though. Just innuendo and class jealousies spun about those who seek these rights, making citizen supporters embrace the idea that those who need bankruptcy are "cheaters" and credit card companies are not cheaters.
Bush II second term legacy so far: screwing the middle class on bankruptcy, and some disputed changes to class action lawsuits. Yawn...but hey, the industries paid a lot of money for these laws - to both sides.
There are certainly hard cases where people have big medical bills, etc, but I don't know of any hospitals that don't allow you to pay those off a little at a time. Might be tight for some folks for a while, but a little thrift never hurt anyone.
I should have made it more clear that I was being scarcastic
Nobody is forced, but there is a difference between someone who is in debt through medical bills or an emergency and someone who is in debt because of trips to Vegas, Cancun, or living it up in college--people the credit card companies know are high risk clients, but are willing to pass that danger on to all their customers.
I think it will be interesting but from the little i have seen it will not change "that much"
Essentially there is no a 6000.00 dollar means test instead of a 1 dollar liquidation test to force more into 13. Bottom linining it just says that people will still be able to "pre plan" enough to carry on as before.
"but who is forced to take out a credit card and charge huge amounts they can't pay back?"
They all believe they can pay it back. You know anyone who didn't think so? Most do pay it back, say 95%. Some can't due to circumstances they did not anticipate, say 5%. Bankruptcy was meant to protect them, and not make them perpetually indentured. However the banks can make more money limiting bankruptcy rights so as rational actors they calculate if it is cost effective to give money to politicians to change the law. It was, they did.
For ideological cover they spin out stories creating the impression that those seeking bankruptcy rights are bad or stupid.
Corporate bankruptcy? Unchanged. Just create a new corp. People can't change so.
Actually I have no problem with people suffering because of there stupidity. That's the natural of state of things isn't it. What I have a problem with unfairness. Using the state to rewrite debt contract terms in your favor is unfair and that is what this bankruptcy bill does.
Nonsense.
Those contracts were not changed ex post facto. Those contracts were VIOLATED and rendered NULL and VOID when the parties that entered into them REFUSED TO PAY. You cant change the terms of a Contract that has already been broken by the other party.
Anyone who is late paying their bills is violating the terms of the agreement they signed when they excepted the Credit. Or am I the only one who reads all that little text that comes with every credit agreement?
If you pay on time, your contract is honored. If you don't, you broke the deal, and they can come after you. It is just that simple.
Where do you get the $6,000 dollar number from? Its my understanding the means test is based on an IRS median income statistic done state by state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.