Bankruptcy Bill Fails to Pass House

Any details on the bill? It was supposed to make it much harder to file right?

I feel that if you file you pretty much repay your debt by suffering the high interest rates/fees/credit rejections...

 

Chapter 7 needs to exist as is. The banks know what risks they are taking when they give crdit cards to 18 year old college students who have no job. Now that poor credit decisions have bitten them on the butt they want to change the rules of the game. The world just doesn't work that way.

If such laws were passed can you imagine the people banks would offer cards to?

 

...and I bet rates wouldn't drop for anyone.

 

No...in fact you'd see more cards pushing the bounds of the usury laws.

 

This from yesterday's AP:

Bankruptcy Bill Dies in House
Thu Nov 14, 8:05 PM ET

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Legislation intended to make it harder for people to erase their debts in bankruptcy court was rejected in the House Thursday, scuttled by a dispute over how the law would apply to fines against abortion protesters.

Conservative Republicans turned against the House leadership, President Bush and their business and banking contributors in rejecting the legislation, which they feared would curtail abortion protesting. Many Democrats also opposed the bill on grounds that it would hurt poor working people.

It was the second time House leaders failed to bring up a House-Senate bankruptcy compromise favored by the Senate and the White House.

Anti-abortion Republicans blamed Senate Democrats for forcing them to vote against the bankruptcy legislation that came out of the House-Senate conference committee. Senate Democrats had inserted language into the compromise that would ban abortion protesters from using bankruptcy to avoid paying court fines for blocking clinics if they knowingly violated the law.

The anti-abortion Republicans blocked the bill in July because of that provision, and did so again on Thursday, saying that the law would be used against even legal abortion protests.

"This is the financial death sentence for peaceful protesters," said Rep. Todd Akin R-Mo.

Banking and credit card companies have been pushing the legislation for five years, but it has stalled each year in Congress. The House-Senate compromise reached this year represented the closest the measure has ever come to passage.

The House refused to consider the compromise by a vote of 243-172. Eighty-seven Republicans and 155 Democrats voted against the measure.

Without House approval before the end of the session, the compromise dies and lawmakers will have to start from scratch next year.

Rep. Roy Blunt R-Mo., the new House Republican whip, said House leaders might try to bring a new bankruptcy bill through without the abortion provision later Thursday or Friday and throw the issue to the Senate. Senate Democrats have said repeatedly that they would not take the bankruptcy bill without the abortion provision but Republicans now have extra bargaining power with their imminent takeover of Congress in January.

Republicans also wouldn't mind shifting the blame to the Democratic-controlled Senate if the bankruptcy legislation fails in Congress, GOP lawmakers said.

Under current law, Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code allows people to escape paying any of their credit-card and other debts. Filings under Chapter 13 force people to repay debts over time in accordance with a court-approved plan.

Right now, a bankruptcy judge or a private attorney appointed by the Justice Department (news - web sites) usually decides whether someone qualifies for dissolution of debts or should be forced to repay under a reorganization plan.

The legislation that died Thursday would have applied a new standard in which, if a debtor had sufficient income to repay at least 25 percent of the debt over five years or earned at least the median income for his state, he or she would be forced into a Chapter 13 repayment plan.

Personal bankruptcy accounted for about 97 percent of the 1.5 million bankruptcy filings between March 2001 and March 2002.

Democratic foes of the bill said it would hurt working Americans who are teetering on the edge of poverty in the middle of a slumping economy. "This is like pouring gasoline on a fire of economic uncertainty and layoffs," said Rep. John Conyers , D-Mich., ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

Added Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.: "It is supported and being pressed forward by a coalition of banks and credit card companies and other business interests who want to profit exorbitantly at the expense of families and small businesses at a time of crisis."

House leaders, including retiring Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, insisted to their conservative allies that the bill would not affect abortion protests and unsuccessfully begged them to get behind the legislation and fight abortion battles later.

"Let's not fight this mock battle," Armey said.

The leaders showed a letter from former independent counsel Kenneth Starr that said his legal analysis indicated the bill would not affect lawful abortion protesting. But anti-abortion Republicans were not persuaded.

"We're condemning peaceful innocent people who have a conscience to protest just to try to save the life of an unborn to a life of financial ruin," said Rep. Joseph Pitts, R-Pa.

GOP aides said House leaders were warned before the vote that the anti-abortion Republicans would line up against the bill, but the leaders went ahead anyway.

"It was a vote of conscience," said Pitts afterward.

EDIT: I just checked the Washington Post -- Apparantly, they dropped the abortion language and re-voted this morning. The conservatives who had been against it, now voted for the revised bill. It passed the House and will be sent on to the Senate.

 

Not yet. The Dems plan to scuttle it. But once your boys gain full control, all bets are off.

 

Conservative Republicans turned against the House leadership, President Bush and their business and banking contributors in rejecting the legislation, which they feared would curtail abortion protesting. Many Democrats also opposed the bill on grounds that it would hurt poor working people.

Off the subject, but why is it always "Conservative Republicans"? It seems you never hear "Liberal Democrat"...it's always just "Democrat". I think they talk about that in the book "Bias".

 

TheFreak:

Because "conservative" hasn't been turned into a dirty word . People brag about being conservative. Getting called liberal can scuttle an election bid.

Lamentable, imo . Besides, there are about 5 "liberal" Democrats left.

Incidentally, I'm very glad the bill failed the first time around. Ch 7 should be more limited in some situations, but I think it's necessary.

 

Speaking of bias and word choice.

Personally I think the Democrats need to work on using "Conservative" as a slam like the way Republicans seem to do with "Liberals". Further, Republicans try to throw the "Liberal" insult to Democrats like Gore, Bill Clinton and our Governor elect (AZ, Janet Napanitano) who clearly are not liberals. Also, it isn’t just politicians but media too-how many times to FOX news guys say “Liberal Joe xxx” with clearly a negative or misguided connotation where they say the “Conservative Jim xxx” with more positive or principled connotation.

I think good place to start is calling many of the Republicans who claim to be "Compassionate Conservative" as "Chameleon Conservatives"--I think it is much more accurate. I have no problem with the old fashion "I am all out for me because if everyone is this way society as a whole is better off" conservatives, but fewer and fewer conservative politicians own up to this even if their policies reflect this (thus the “Chameleon Conservative” term).

Personally though it would take a terrible illness or unforeseen event for this bill to personally effect me I agree with Max, Refs, Cohen’s and others sentiments. That bill sucks and is totally slanted to credit companies who do not judicially regulate the credit they give out.

 

So now compassion and conservative thought are mutually exclusive? To me...conservatism entails giving people control over their own lives, rather than having the government hold your hand through life and make the hard choices for you. That doesn't seem inconsistent with compassion at all.

 

Wasn't it because one would expect the Moderate Repubs to jump ship at times but it was the Conservatives in this instance because it impacted a Conservative cause.

 

Originally posted by Refman
...conservatism entails giving people control over their own lives, rather than having the government hold your hand through life ...

You drawing unemployment Ref?

jk

Seriously, there are times when a security net for people is a good thing, right? Bad things happen to good people. The government cannot and shouldn't be there always, but a couple of times in your life...it can make a big difference.

 

i always hate it when those damn congressmen attach riders to legislation that have basically nothing to do with the bill. (in this case the abortion thing) what the hell should abortion have to do with chapter 7 bankruptcy????

 

And the term Liberal and "Left" essentially derived from the French Parliament that stood for economic and social freedom (somewhat between where modern Libertarians and Liberals are today). However just as conservatives try to bastardize Liberal into "tax & spend" "social decay" and "anti-freedom" type rhetoric (characterizing them as misguided “do gooder” at best, un-American “Commi/Red” language at worst) I just think it is about time to return the favor in American politics about what Conservatism means, who it helps, and who it doesn’t (so what if Republican cry lets not make this a class warfare kind of debate). I don't call reducing the safety net “compassionate” nor do I think the hard right in our country is compassionate or in touch with everyday people—but I digress that is just my opinion. I do however understand the utilitarian philosophy underlying much of modern conservative that in fact has some connections to the original Left actual—that more is better regardless of where the more may fall so long as the free markets dictate (versus aristocracy). As I said before I also understand the “society is better off if you leave everyone alone to sink or swim” perspective too. I just think it is disingenuous that many in the right do use this rhetoric to describe themselves (what we are proposing for tax reductions, safety net reform, and spending cuts is better for everybody ). That is why until they own up a little that there are winners and losers I say call them “Chameleon conservatives”.

Oh Ref, so you are saying Conservatives want to give people control over there lives. So I assume you are for legalized prostitution, decriminalization of drugs, the right for people in pain to end their life, etc.

 

Originally posted by Desert Scar
...so you are saying Conservatives want to give people control over there lives. So I assume you are for legalized prostitution, decriminalization of drugs, the right for people in pain to end their life, etc.

Hmm. Except for the decriminalization of hard drugs (which can lead to death or the harm of others), I'm for those.

Oh...does that make me a Liberal or Conservative? I'm getting confused.

 

line item veto