« Income taxes (part 3) | Main | Judge backs off English 'test' »
April 19, 2005
Who's interest was being served?
This is deserving of a separate post.
These are the amendments to the bankruptcy bill that were voted down.
S.AMDT.15 to S.256 To require enhanced disclosure to consumers regarding the consequences of making only minimum required payments in the repayment of credit card debt, and for other purposes.
S.AMDT.16 to S.256 To protect servicemembers and veterans from means testing in bankruptcy, to disallow certain claims by lenders charging usurious interest rates to servicemembers, and to allow servicemembers to exempt property based on the law of the State of their premilitary residence.
S.AMDT.17 to S.256 To provide a homestead floor for the elderly.
S.AMDT.28 to S.256 To exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious medical problems from means testing.
S.AMDT.29 to S.256 To provide protection for medical debt homeowners.
S.AMDT.31 to S.256 To limit the amount of interest that can be charged on any extension of credit to 30 percent.
S.AMDT.32 to S.256 To preserve existing bankruptcy protections for individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill or disabled family members.
S.AMDT.37 to S.256 To exempt debtors from means testing if their financial problems were caused by identity theft.
S.AMDT.38 to S.256 To discourage predatory lending practices.
S.AMDT.42 to S.256 To limit the exemption for asset protection trusts. (This is the one that let’s rich people keep their houses)
S.AMDT.47 to S.256 To prohibit the discharge, in bankruptcy, of a debt resulting from the debtor's unlawful interference with the provision of lawful goods or services or damage to property used to provide lawful goods or services. (Yes they left in a loophole that allows people who committed a crime and were fined to have their debts wiped out by bankruptcy)
S.AMDT.49 to S.256 To protect employees and retirees from corporate practices that deprive them of their earnings and retirement savings when a business files for bankruptcy.
S.AMDT.70 to S.256 To exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by failure to receive alimony or child support, or both, from means testing.
All information available on Thomas. Click on Amendments.
Posted by Paul Witt at April 19, 2005 11:01 AM
Comments
If you were wanting to exempt all that then there was really no point in having the bill at all.. Asset Protection Trust are not just for the wealthy. Let's say you have set aside money for your child's college tuition into a trust. If you have to file bankruptcy it would protect your childs college education. I don't think you have to be rich to take advantage of this. You just have to play class warfare games if you are a democrat from what I can tell. It's always those evil rich people.
Posted by: Ron at April 19, 2005 10:24 AM
What amendments were adopted that swayed the democrats to vote for this? And because of this are you not going to support Harold Ford, Jr. when he runs for Frist senate seat.
Posted by: Ron at April 19, 2005 10:40 AM
Because of this I'm going to ask Congressman Ford why he supported this bill when I meet him. If his answer is acceptable then I just might volunteer for his campaign. Who else would I vote for, Van Hilleary? LOL
Asset Protection Trusts cost several thousand dollars to setup and maintain. Not something the middle class can so easily do.
Posted by: Paul Witt at April 19, 2005 10:59 AM
What amendments would you support Ron?
Do yo think usury is an acceptable practice and think it was right to defeat that amendment?
What ceiling would you accept as fair for interest charges?
Do you think that our troops families need protected from predation while away fighting a war?
Is it OK to seize an elderly person's retirement if they happen to have a major medical event that costs an unusually large amount of money?
Please, let us know what you feel is acceptable about each particular amendment being defeated.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 19, 2005 01:52 PM
Listen. I do not know enough about this bill. I actually have a life and can't devote that kind of time. That is why we elect Duncan and all the other boys and girls on The Hill. If I get an opportunity I will try and read it all and then get some statistics on who is filing bankruptcy and on and on. But that has already been done for me. And members on both sides of the aisle thought it was worthy of voting for. If things go bad for me then I may concern myself more with this legislation. I was just sick of hearing how this is all for CitiCorp. How in one breath Paul is gonna make Congressman Ford pay. Yeah right. He's gonna pay by accepting your support and vote. That's really going to have an impact now isn't it?
Posted by: Ron at April 19, 2005 08:59 PM
Just a follow up. I went and looked through this blog as well as a few other left of center blogs and I am just not seeing any outrage before the vote took place. You guys have wonderful after-the-fact, 20-20 hindsight. That is helpful.
Posted by: Ron at April 19, 2005 09:05 PM
OMG... You skimmed some lefty blogs and didn't see any pre-vote outrage?!? That's such an indictment!
Horseshit. Take a look at my post on visiting Duncan's office. The last two paragraphs are about the bankruptcy bill. TalkingPointsMemo has an entire section on it. Atrios and Kos followed the bill on a day to day basis.
Of course you probably think Instapundit and LGF are lefty blogs.
Posted by: Paul Witt at April 20, 2005 10:04 AM
Oh and what's going to have an impact on Congressman Ford is having those of us that put in hundreds of hours volunteering for Kerry tell him to shove it and find other volunteers. If you don't think that'd have a significant impact on his Senate race you're on crack.
Posted by: Paul Witt at April 20, 2005 10:07 AM
Be honest how about it. When Howard Scream was running for the Demo nomination you called Kerry everything but a bar of soap. I did a search on Karmann and some blog terminology and found where you stated you wouldn't support John Kerry. But then you bent right over and kissed his ass. Good try, Paul.
Posted by: Ron at April 20, 2005 11:04 AM
I researched John Kerry and while he was about as animated as a bar of soap he was a genuinely good person. Third rate compared to Howard Dean but still, a good man.
His comments about Dean in the summer of '03 pissed me off. I changed my mind later. I might change my mind about Ford too. But this time I plan to ask him about the vote in person.
Posted by: Paul Witt at April 20, 2005 11:27 AM
Dean is de' man!
Yeearrrggghhh!!!
I love him!
Now Ron, since you've got a life and don't have time to research everything that might be harmful to your rigid Rushbo indoctrination our friend Paul has kindly put each proposed amendment right in the original front page post.
Not only that, he linked to the authoratative source of US law making.
It would be so very nice of you to resspond to each proposed amendment and tell us why you support their individual defeat.
Tell us why the amendments were jsut wrong to consider.
Tell us why MBNA lobbyists wrote a bill that no one else was allowed to touch and why that is a good thing for the American public.
Pretty please.
Posted by: gonzone at April 20, 2005 01:31 PM
Paul is right about the Asset Protection Trust. It is only for the rich and the Republicans voted down the Dem amendment to eliminate it.
The credit card companies already have their profit figured in when they offer credit to people who they know will default on their debt. They get it with yearly fees, very high interest rates, exorbitant late fees and interest proceedures. They are well covered and do not need protection by congress.
What they need is regulation by Congress. They need to stop sending credit cards to every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a heartbeat. They caused this so called problem by their reckless behavior.
I think this is another "crisis" blown out of proportion by a political party out of control and ready to do anything to enrich themselves.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 20, 2005 07:42 PM
So, if Bush's little speech is truth and the stated reasons for the bill are true, then we should very soon expect to see a drastic reduction in interest rates, especially for the poor, since bankruptcy was the only thing keeping them so high, correct?
Forgive me if I don't believe a word of their hogwash.
What WILL happen is that profits by banks and credit card companies will, at least for a time, grow substantially.
Same thing for the tort reform bill. Doctor's insurance rates won't go down, lawsuits won't go down, but insurer's profits WILL go up.
It's a scam, and not a very slick one at that.
I guess we get the government and laws we deserve when we vote for corporate whores.
Posted by: gonzone at April 21, 2005 11:36 AM
Must not have been to slick of a scheme. Couldn't even get it past the rubes and the naive in the democratic party. Oh wait, yeah they did. How could that be?? I forgot how virtuous the democrats were.
Posted by: Ron at April 21, 2005 12:06 PM
More circular logic. Is it only you that's allowed to slam Democrats Ron?
Posted by: Paul Witt at April 21, 2005 12:46 PM
What corporate whores did you vote for gonzone. My guess is that you vote a straight democratic ticket. I'm right, huh? You should quit putting yourself in a box. There are a lot of good republicans. Just like there are a lot of good democrats. I voted for one I think I might really like. So far Phil Bredesen appears to be a hard working sensible person. I don't even know if the guy is pro-choice or not. But I bet you do. I don't really care. I had to try and figure out what was best for my state when I went to the ballot box. Bredesen gave better answers to the questions on the roads in Knoxville. That is of major concern to me as me and my family travel these roads. I have always voted for Mike Padgett. What a great guy. Runs a tight ship and has been very effective. I really like Evan Bayh. I even admire Bill Clinton. The guy had a lot of potential. The only real problem I have with him was the fact that he lied to a grand jury. That is the only thing I am aware of that he has done illegal. Yes he did a lot of unethical stuff. And so has a lot of Republicans. None of these guys are saints. I just know that if I lie to a grand jury the penalty is going to be much worse for me. You reckon? In this instance I am being treated like a second class citizen. Quit the name calling. If you think they have a stupid idea then say they have a stupid idea. Poke fun. Hell, I do. You have just got to lighten up a little. I have no idea who you are but I don't dislike you either. I am having tremendous fun trading jabs with you but I sure don't mean anything personal ever. I know you find this difficult to believe. If your life revolves around politics it is revolving around the wrong thing.
Posted by: Ron at April 22, 2005 04:26 PM
Must not have been to slick of a scheme. Couldn't even get it past the rubes and the naive in the republican party sponsoring it. Oh wait, yeah they did. How could that be?? I forgot how virtuous the republicrats were.
"My guess is that you vote a straight democratic ticket. I'm right, huh? You should quit putting yourself in a box."
You would be very wrong. But let me ask you the same question.
My guess is that you vote a straight republican ticket. I'm right, huh? You should quit putting yourself in a box Ron.
Posted by: gonzone at April 25, 2005 09:45 AM
Evidently you didn't read my post. And if you did you did not comprehend what I said.
Posted by: Ron at April 25, 2005 10:04 AM