Im sure the assclown special interest groups who pushed through this legislation are grinding their teeth about this small modification. No bother, theyve got other middle and lower class people to destroy now. More and more Americans drowning in debt and lower wages by the day.

 

The system needs to be reformed but not the way the special interest groups want it done.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/01/...y.ap/index.html

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democrats pressed Tuesday to protect seniors and U.S. military personnel from provisions in a pending bankruptcy bill that would make it much more difficult for people to use the law to shed their debts.

 

The measure, whose supporters are predicting victory after nearly eight years of congressional gridlock, would significantly increase the burden of those trying to erase credit card and other debts in bankruptcy court.

 

The Democrats said they were concerned about financial hardships faced by veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and their families. Some soldiers in the National Guard and Reserves have seen their businesses fail after they were called up to serve, they said.

 

"Many men and women in the military are making extraordinary sacrifices," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, principal author of the proposed amendment to the bankruptcy overhaul legislation. "It's unfair that they should come home to face this new harsh bankruptcy law."

 

The amendment would exempt members of the military from a new test in the bankruptcy legislation to measure people's income and assets to determine whether they must repay their debts or have them canceled in bankruptcy. Under the current system, bankruptcy judges have the discretion to decide that.

 

Durbin's proposal also would allow service members more generous property exemptions when applying for bankruptcy so that they could keep their homes and vehicles.

 

The proposal by Durbin, who is the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, prompted Republicans to draft their own amendment aimed at military personnel. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, described it as more "constrained" than the Democratic provision and targeted at recently returned service members.

 

President Bush on Monday called the proposed revisions of the nation's bankruptcy laws "commonsense reforms" that will curb abuses. In the House, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, has proposed identical legislation.

 

The Senate Democrats, many of whom support a bankruptcy overhaul but oppose the 500-page bill as written, have prepared scores of amendments that would, for example, also protect employees of bankrupt companies.

 

Democrats also are considering trying to attach to the legislation an increase in the minimum wage, one of their highest priorities.

 

Supporters hope for passage before lawmakers adjourn for the spring recess at the end of the month. They say they are heartened by the swift passage two weeks of a bill aimed at discouraging class-action lawsuits.

 

Banks, credit card companies and retailers have pushed since 1997 for a bill overhauling the bankruptcy laws. Consumer, civil rights groups and unions say it legislation would shred a safety net for those who have lost their jobs or face mounting medical bills.

 

Democrats also want the bill to prohibit protesters from using bankruptcy to avoid paying court fines for blocking abortion clinics, if the demonstrators knowingly violated the law.

 

Bankruptcy legislation nearly passed Congress in 2002 but failed over that proposal. Bush has supported bankruptcy bills that do not include the clinic provision.

 

Personal bankruptcies appear to have broken the upward trend of recent years, slipping 0.8 percent in the 12 months ending June 30, the most recent figures. Some experts say the decline means that while the level of bankruptcies is still high compared with four years ago, some consumers finally have been able to benefit from an improving economy and low interest rates.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html

 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty03/pov03fig03.pdf

 

It would seem the current poverty rate and number living in poverty is approx what it was at the beginning of Clinton's 2nd term. One also notes the current uptick started WHILE Clinton was still in office.

699661[/snapback]

 

Once again Tony you amaze me with your complete hatred towards anything not red. I wonder where all the hatred comes from is all.

 

It would seem the current poverty rate and number living in poverty is approx what it was at the beginning of Clinton's 2nd term.

 

Did you decipher the graph all on your own? I mean I see you forgot to mention the fact that Clinton started his second term at that point because the point dropped to that level while his first term. GWB starts his second term with the point there because it raised during his first term.

 

One also notes how the only time between the 1974 calendar year and the current day that the median income for a family of four actually dropped between years happened during the current administration. :blink:

 

 

One also notes the current uptick started WHILE Clinton was still in office.

 

You leave out an interesting point though. That up-tick started during the election year. The graph you are breaking down covers the span of 11 elections.

 

The years below all share something in common. What? For one, they are all election years. Also, there was an increase in the poverty rate and/or number of poverty during the at least one year surrounding the following presidential years:

 

1960 (Meaning there was an increase somewhere between the 1959-1961 year)

1968

1976

1980

1992

2000

 

So 6/11 elections years saw a bump up of poverty in some sense in its surrounding years.

 

 

The elections year that did not see a bump up in poverty in some sense were the following years:

 

1964*

1972*

1984*

1988

1996*

 

The * means that the incumbent won that election year. Only once was there a change of power and there was no bump up of unemployment. However 4/5 times there was no bump up in unemployment in years surrounding an election year that means the incumbent won.

 

 

Now lets look at these years:

 

Only 4 times did a president who sat through at least parts of 2 terms make it to the end of his second term, during this time span. 3 of those times (the years below) did the poverty numbers increase. The only time it did not was in 1988.

 

1960

1968

2000

 

So 3/4 of the times that a president who sat at least part of 2 terms the poverty numbers increased in the surrounding years of the election year which replaced the 1+-term president. So is it just coincidence? Or does the changing of the guard after more than one term cause bumps in the poverty level?

 

Well in 1988, the one time there was not a bump up in the surround years of an election replacing a 1+ term president the previous president's VP was elected, not much of a change really.

 

So the 3 times there was a real, complete, changing of the guard of a 1+ term president, including 2000 when Clinton was replaced, there was a bump in poverty during the span of the surrounding years. 3 out of 3, coincidence?

 

So is it as simple as saying Clinton caused the current up-tick? No. History shows the changing of the guard can cause up-ticks in poverty.

Getting back to the article rather than the idiotic tonyi bashing that pollutes these threads, I'm going to say that the dems have a few good points. The new bankruptcy law is too strict and will harm the troops. However, the current system is flawed and perhaps a slightly more strict law that still gives judges enough discretion would be best. The dems seem to have a fair argument and hopefully a compromise cna be reached on this issue. The protestors thing is valid but goes both ways. If a person quits their job to go on a protest and after all is said and done owes thousands of dollars in debt, theres no reason why they should be forgiven of their debts. Personal responsibility yet again. Reform bankruptcy laws, but make special provisions for military personnel. Negative on the minimum wage increase unless if its a small one, we dont want more people to be unemployed all of a sudden

Republicans defeated the military exemption.

 

http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/226155-4312-009.html

 

I frikkin love it. Question the president and youre anti troops but no f***in issue happens when credit card companies and banks want to screw our troops over. Whats clear is that the special interest groups like credit card companies are the most important people to defend but its nice to use the troops and hide behind them when you need to accomplish crap like this.

 

What a crock of f***in s***. :banghead :banghead

I think this bill is too harsh

 

but everything would be great with personal responsibility

 

sometimes bad things happen and sometimes it's tough

 

I think credit card companies should be reformed ... i don't think they should be able to set a minimum payment at an amount that once paid leaves you at an amount where the finance charge puts you over the limit, thus creating fees and a harsher payment in subsequent months to get to the point where the finance charge doesn't kill you

 

I don't think they should be allowed to use across the board default rules ... for example, if you pay late on 1 card, every other card can use that late payment to bump your rates up, although they were never harmed

 

I think these are the reforms that should be targeted making it easier to dig out of debt.

 

Also the debtors need to take responsibility for their book and not give large credit to people they know are over extended.

 

I do think the bankruptcy laws need to be modified. However, this is too harsh and doesn't do anything to help prevent the cause of the bankruptcy

It's good to see the Democrats supporting our troops. A lot of them have to support a family with low income. However, it was Bush who gave them a pay raise.

Republicans defeated the military exemption.

 

http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/226155-4312-009.html

 

I frikkin love it. Question the president and youre anti troops but no f***in issue happens when credit card companies and banks want to screw our troops over. Whats clear is that the special interest groups like credit card companies are the most important people to defend but its nice to use the troops and hide behind them when you need to accomplish crap like this.

 

What a crock of f***in s***. :banghead :banghead

699978[/snapback]

I hope this doesn't surprise you that much, it took the outrage of Democratic congressmen to get the Army to make their Humvees better protected, and to increase funding for protective body armor.

 

The actions of Republicans tend to be two-faced, since they tend to be slaves to the special interest lobby, more so than Democrats.

I hope this doesn't surprise you that much, it took the outrage of Democratic congressmen to get the Army to make their Humvees better protected, and to increase funding for protective body armor.

Actually it didn't. The military recognized the problem and starting armoring 2000 a month and in the mean time the Democrats keep attacking them for it. The Democrats simply benefited from the whole Humvee thing.

Nice that it's becoming more difficult for individual citizens to declare bankrupcy and get themselves out of financial disaster, yet corporations find it easier and easier.

 

:thumbup

the only thing we can definitively accuse him of "causing" is a certain stain on a certain dress of course

700371[/snapback]

 

Aww jealous Tony? Did Bill live your fantasy, touching a woman?

the only thing we can definitively accuse him of "causing" is a certain stain on a certain dress of course

700371[/snapback]

 

Aww jealous Tony? Did Bill live your fantasy, touching a woman?

700388[/snapback]

You're a moonbat mind reader now?

700397[/snapback]

 

You have to get all that anger to make asinine threads and posts from somewhere.

your tin foil hat.

700401[/snapback]

 

I'm not the paranoid one here who thinks the world is conspiring against me Tony. A mirror is not a window to the outside world.

I don't think the world is conspiring against me - just a select few.

 

The few, the proud, the moonbats.

700428[/snapback]

 

Trust me Tony I doubt you have something to worry about.

Republicans defeated the military exemption.

 

http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/226155-4312-009.html

 

I frikkin love it. Question the president and youre anti troops but no f***in issue happens when credit card companies and banks want to screw our troops over. Whats clear is that the special interest groups like credit card companies are the most important people to defend but its nice to use the troops and hide behind them when you need to accomplish crap like this.

 

What a crock of f***in s***. :banghead :banghead

699978[/snapback]

I hope this doesn't surprise you that much, it took the outrage of Democratic congressmen to get the Army to make their Humvees better protected, and to increase funding for protective body armor.

 

The actions of Republicans tend to be two-faced, since they tend to be slaves to the special interest lobby, more so than Democrats.

700258[/snapback]

 

 

Hahahaha good one! Take off your blue tinited glasses for a second and realize that both parties do it equally. Repubs have the corporations, banks, doctors, and businesses the democrats have the unions, lawyers, minority groups, environmental groups etc. Stop with the uninformed bias.