**In you men accept bribes to shed blood; you take usury and excessive interest and make unjust gain from your neighbors by extortion...I will surely strike my hands together at the unjust gain you have made and at the blood you have shed in your midst. Ezekiel 22:12-13 This Bankruptcy Proposal http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_echidneofthesnakes_archive.html#111037472847148396 Why do we need to change the federal laws* that cover bankruptcy? There are two theories about this: The first one says that Americans are addicted to their credit cards and other forms of reckless spending and that the current bankruptcy regulations allow all the crazy spenders to avoid paying for their feast. Instead, the extra costs are rolled into higher interest rates which are then paid by us prudent citizens. The second one says that while there may be some truth in the first theory, the real reason for the new proposal is that it will benefit the banks and credit card companies which have long fought (and paid) for just such a law. Finally they have the votes to get it through. The new proposal lets the lenders continue their practise of offering credit to people who shouldn't be offered any at the terms used but in a change from the past the debts thus incurred could not be skipped through bankruptcy by most debtors. It is true that Americans are pretty indebted. The average household carries eight thousand dollars in credit card debt and a suprising number only pays the minimum allowable charges on their cards. One point four million couples or individuals declared personal bankruptcy last year, though at least some of them probably acted in anticipation of the changes now underway. Women and men appear about equally affected by bankruptcy. It looks like the first theory is the correct one, doesn't it? Moral bankruptcy, some might even mutter. Time indeed to put a stop to all this frivolous consumption, and our caring government is doing just that. But then we hear that a recent Harvard study which looked at data from five states in 2001 found the most common reason for bankruptcy filings to be serious medical problems. Other common reasons for bankruptcy were the loss of a job or a divorce. Suddenly our picture of the indebted changes from the frivolous shopper to something sadder and more serious. Maybe even something that could look a little bit like ourselves, especially when we learn that three quarters of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. This could happen to me, we might whisper. Let's not get too carried away. Some of the bankruptcies must be frivolous and it could be a good idea to rein those in. And the proposed bill applies a means test which exempts people with lower than median incomes in their state from the harsher requirements. Only those who can afford to pay something back will be expected to do so. Isn't personal responsibility a good idea for everyone? Why should some of us spend and spend when others work hard and save for the things they need? Why indeed? But what about those who file bankruptcy because of high medical expenses? Surely the proposal will allow them some extra slack? Actually, no. An amendment proposing a homestead exemption of $150,000 in home equity for this group was defeated by the Republicans in the Senate. So was an amendment asking for extra consideration for those in the military who had to file bankruptcy because their military service caused their private businesses to fail, an amendment asking for extra consideration for those who file bankruptcy because of identity theft and an amendment asking for a homestead exemption for the elderly. All defeated by pretty much every single Republican in the Senate. Because being prudent is the right thing to be. Personal responsibility is good for all of us. Except for the very rich: Another amendment which the Republicans also defeated would have gotten rid of the loopholes which allow for "asset protection trusts" in several states. Such trusts are expensive to create, so only available for the wealthy, but they will let you have a homestead exemption in a bankruptcy for your manor house or two. The Republicans were not totally alone in rejecting all these amendments. Some Democrats also helped in this noble endeavor to get frivolous spending in this country under better control. But they all had trouble when it came to controlling the other side of the equation: the behavior of the lending institutions: An amendment proposing a ban on usury was resoundingly defeated. Now the credit card companies are free to charge interest rates of over thirty percent for certain kinds of debt. Usury, by the way, is explicitly banned in the Bible but this didn't make the Republican fundamentalist Senators change their vote.** Weighty moral matters, these credit concerns, when fundamentalists go against their Bible. The Senate also rejected an amendment which would have required credit card statements to show how long it would take to pay the debt back just with minimum payments and what the total interest payments would be. Such information is not necessary, the Republicans decided. The evidence seems to be mounting for the second of the two theories: that credit card companies and banks have paid for this bill for several years and now expect delivery of the product, and studying the donation patterns of these companies lends more support for this argument. But the bill also fits into a wider pattern, one that Paul Krugman discussed in his recent column on the bankruptcy bill: "the "risk privatization", a steady erosion of the protection the government provides against personal misfortune, even as ordinary families face ever-growing economic insecurity." Check for yourself: Lifelong employment? Gone. Employer-provided health insurance? Going. Unemployment benefits? Shortening. Length of average unemployment? Increasing. Add to that these recent attacks against bankruptcy protection and Social Security, and the picture becomes clear. And ugly, especially for the middle classes who can no longer rely on staying middle class.
when will they rework the bankruptcy laws for companies? They rework the liability of companies in the companies favor . . if a company f*cks up . .they get a pass if a person does. . .they wanna screw him bloody Rocket River
I was newly outraged this morning as I was listening to a news story on the radio about working people trying to pay for health care and the stress this caused them. I was just thinking- motherf-er, why in the f was this f-in bill such an f-in priority. Is the biggest f-in problem in the country really the vulnerable credit industry. Are the credit card companies really hurting so much, that the system needs to be tilted more in their favor.
oh, no. it's wasn't the MOST important thing. subpoenas for McGwire, Thomas and Giambi are of HUGE urgency. i hear ya. and i agree with the sentiment behind the political cartoon, above, though i'm not ready to acknowledge the net breaking out under "social security," yet. more and more companies are forced to cut health insurance coverage for employees, because they simply can't afford it. as a small-business owner, i'll tell you first-hand, it's a b****.
Yet another boondoggle from the boondoggle administration. Is there any industry they haven't paid off yet?
Work and sick young'un forced hiatus. in the past 10 days, Aidan has had an ear infection, strep throat, and pneumonia. I was so sleep deprived on Saturday that I wasn't even able to accompany them (the wife and the baby) to the ER. Forward me your contact info (my moniker at gmail dot com) again as I believe I have misplaced it. I still have not had the time to read the book, what with 40 hours of work, 7 hours of classes, and a 14 month old. I do have the money to spare right now, so I will send it as soon as I have your details.
is your son better, andy? we've dealt with little bouts of pneumonia with my oldest son a couple of times. breathing treatments seemed to work fine.
We've got the same problem. Even when we've been phenomenally busy we haven't even considered hiring people because of things like health insurance. I used to be opposed to the single payer health system because I didn't like the government running health care but the more I see how badly our system is failing the more I'm starting to think this might be a good idea. The cost in taxes might be made up in terms of savings that companies get from not having to pay for health care. For that matter a health care program that allows for more routine preventive medicine vs. the catastrophic care model of much of our health care might reduce overall costs. For instance I pay for my own health insurance with a high deductable which discourages me from going to get routine health checkups since I only get coverage once the bill pases my deductable.
He has become himself again over the past two days. I think the real turnaround was Wednesday night, when he woke up at 10:30 PM and wanted to party (and eat everything under the sun after having no appetite for a week and a half) until 2 AM. Thankfully, it was my wife's night to stay up with him so I got a sleep reprieve. Last night, he slept all the way through for the first time in weeks. The breathing treatments have worked well, though he doesn't really enjoy them. We have also been giving him various other medications that seem to be working very well (it must have been bacterial pneumonia). It has been an interesting way to spend Spring Break, to say the least, but at least I didn't have to take any sick time from work since I have already been off. That's nice, because I am going to need all of my sick time once the new baby comes (Mary is pregnant again) and I take paternity leave. BTW, in order to keep from derailing this thread even further, I am going to post the pregnancy announcement in the Hangout, so please direct any further correspondance regarding the new baby or the sick baby to that thread.
Wonder if people will finally vote for a national health system. I definately believe it will be great for this country. Maybe Hillary can make this her key platform idea in 08.
Nice, Charge 30% interest then get them! Link 30% interest rates: Sound business or loan sharking? Fri Mar 11, 6:23 AM ET Op/Ed - USATODAY.com Laws against "usury" go back to biblical times and were adopted by states starting in the 18th century. The concept was simple: People in dire need of money will pay just about any interest rate to get it. So society moved to protect them from sleazy lenders who threaten to break legs. • Schiavo turns down offer • Gunman opens fire at Atlanta courthouse; three are killed • DNA connects suicide victim to killing of judge's family • Iraqis bury victims of suicide attack • EPA sets tighter clean-air rules -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Search USATODAY.com Snapshots USA TODAY Snapshot Should men bone up on skeletal health? More USA TODAY Snapshots In New York, for instance, it's a crime for an individual to charge more than 25% interest on a loan. But what's illegal for a loan shark in New York is perfectly legal for credit card issuers that put their operations in states that have no rate ceilings, such as South Dakota and Delaware. They can charge their customers everywhere whatever they wish, because what counts is the law of the state where their credit card operations are based. In fact, several top credit card issuers now slap "penalty rates" just shy of 30% on customers, including some who have made a single slip or even pay their bills on time. These modern-day versions of usury won't endanger your kneecaps, but they may push you into bankruptcy court. And if the credit card industry gets its way in Congress, as now appears virtually certain, many consumers won't be able to get a fresh start even there. For the past eight years, the industry has lobbied fiercely for legislation that would rewrite the nation's bankruptcy laws. Too many consumers are abusing credit and then fleeing to bankruptcy court to avoid paying, the industry argues. The bill, which cleared the Senate Thursday on a 74-25 vote, would make it far tougher for consumers to wipe out their debts and get a fresh start by declaring bankruptcy. The bill is expected to zip through the House of Representatives and be signed by President Bush (news - web sites). It's hard to argue with the need for people to behave responsibly and pay off their debts. Where bankruptcy once was an embarrassing last resort, these days it has lost its stigma and become a tactic for some consumers to escape their debts. But the same lenders bemoaning the death of responsible borrowing are profiting from their own irresponsible lending tactics. Even as bankruptcy rates soar, the industry continues to inundate consumers with mailings offering low "teaser" rates that quickly escalate. Card issuers have extended credit so freely and indiscriminately - by their own account, to many borrowers who don't pay - that the average credit card debt per household topped $9,500 last year, nearly double what it was a decade ago. No doubt, the rush to bankruptcy is a serious problem, but the legislation is, at best, only half an answer. It reins in consumers but does nothing to force more responsible lending. A more balanced approach would curb the industry's most objectionable practices: •Squeezing consumers. By the time some debtors end up in court, they may already have paid more money than they originally borrowed. Take Ruth Owens of Cleveland. In 1997, she started trying to pay off a $1,963 balance on her Discover card. By 2003, she had paid $3,492. Yet her balance, pumped up by fees and interest, had grown to more than $5,500. Discover sued, but last year a Cleveland judge rejected its collection demand, saying Owens was the victim of "unreasonable, unconscionable" practices. Discover said Thursday that the judge's ruling was "inconsistent with the law." • Raising fees Late fees on some major credit cards have soared to $39 - nearly three times the average fee in 1995. Fees for going over a credit limit have climbed, too, often to $35 a month. •Hiking rates. Several top issuers now hit consumers with "penalty rates" just below 30% - rates that would violate usury laws in a number of states. At that rate, a consumer paying $300 a month on a $10,000 debt would take more than 44 years to pay it off. Consumers are punished for everything from making one or two late payments to using too much of their available credit limits, even if they have paid on time. Judy Reid, of Johnson City, N.Y., said her rate on one card nearly tripled to 29.49% recently, despite a good payment record. She said the issuer told her that something in her credit report triggered the increase. Consumers saddled with onerous rates and fees may well be driven into bankruptcy. Under the bill moving through Congress, most won't find a haven there. Reining in irresponsible consumers is a worthwhile goal - but only if it's coupled with responsible lending. In biblical times, those who made usurious loans were said to be banished from God's presence. These days, they are rewarded with record profits and new laws tilted in their favor. At a minimum, they deserve a plague of boils.
I was reading the fine print from one of my credit cards, Orchard Bank AKA Household Credit Services, it seems if I ever want a credit increase half the amount will automatically be charged once it's approved. In other words if I'm approved for say a 300 increase a 150 charge will be tacked onto my bill, WTF is that!? Anybody else have a card like that?
Seriously! If I ever have any problem with one of my cards I just threaten to cancel the account and pay it off in full! You wouldn't believe how many times this threat has worked and I've had my APR lowered, my limit increased, pretty much anything I've wanted. Some of these CC companies will do anything to keep your business.
Yeah, I haven't bothered, quite honestly I don't want an increase in credit I just thought it was pretty f**ked up. Can't really complain about the card otherwise, no annual fees, membership fees, and with someone with credit as bad as mine the interest rate is tolerable.
