LawTalkers - Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=661)

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why have bankruptcy at all, then? You don't get into bankruptcy unless you take on debt, right, so we should never allow it for anyone.

Seriously, the problem here as I see it is mainly one of motivation for the bill, as well as some of the particulars.

There are a number of possible balances one could strike as to how easy/hard bankruptcy should be. Obviously it can't be too easy, because then the lenders disappear. At the same time, it's somewhat desirable to allow it in certain circumstances, because otherwise people will be very reluctant to take on any debt (also a problem for lenders), because of the risk of massive debt problems (which, you need to realize, quite often come from unexpected events, such as massive medical bills or unemployment, not simply lots of HDTV purchases). Getting it right is difficult.

The problem here is that congress decided to alter that balance at the behest of cc cos., who had decided they needed to be stopped before they sinned again. They promoted easy consumer debt, but didn't like the fact that easy consumer debt means a number of uncreditworthy consumers got too much credit and, later, too much debt. So they're trying to bar the door after they screwed up. Maybe making bankruptcy harder is a good thing; maybe a bad thing--it's hard to say. What's easy to say is that the motivation for this bill has nothing to do with whether bankruptcy is too easy or too hard, just that it's too common as a result of cc overindulgence.

Meanwhile, making it worse, congress decided to except from the new restrictions, (for lack of a better word) the rich. Rich people are far better positioned to take advantage of the loopholes; meanwhile, the poor, who are much more likely to need the advantages of chapter 7, are stuck like a canoist in Deliverance. Donald Trump is a bigger abuser of bankruptcy than the average consumer--but what are the chances he won't be able to go through it just the same again?

Let me be clear. I am not supporting or objecting to this particular bill. I'm just objecting to the "credit card companies are evil" "innocent borrowers need protection" bullshit being peddled around here. Frankly, I don't see a need to reform the BK laws. They seem to be working fine as is.

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
You know, I understand that various people here know various permutations of groups of other people also here, and I understand that sometimes it's easy to forget, when you're talking over drinks, what's out and what's not, but, dammit, this was private.

I don't think a kayak is really a "boat," but I could be wrong.

Spankme, this bill does the opposite of what you seem to think should be done. I can't remember if you were defending the bill or not because now I get you mixed up with club. One of y'all needs to move, or get a color avatar, or something. Maybe seem taller. Anyway, everyone on both sides of the aisle on here who has said what this bill is doing (rather than what they think it should do, or asking questions only) has made it clear that it makes it harder for people who are genuinely financially fucked, and not really much if any harder for people who are actually pretty well-set financially but are abusing the system. So one would think you could come out and say that the bill seems to be a bad one. But that may be beyond your shill-for-the-R-party capabilities.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't think that works so well if you already have $5000 on your Raiders MBNA, don't like the fees they're jacking on you, and you want to flip to Cap. One. Cap One says you're already beyond your credit capabilities, so suck it.

You opted for those fees when you signed up for the card. If they jacked the fees after you had a balance, there's a problem that ordinary principles of contract law ought to (but may not) address.

Quote:

When I got out of law school with a little less debt than that, I just threatened MBNA that I'd transfer somewhere else. They dropped my rate immediately.

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
When I got out of law school with a little less debt than that, I just threatened MBNA that I transfer somewhere else. They dropped my rate immediately.

Coltrane, you were still a damn good credit risk, for chrissakes.

What I like is that if you keep all your debt but one absolutely current, but fall behind even one or two payments on one debt (no matter how small), they will jack up the rates on all of your debt -- even when it's with other companies. No, this has not happened to me personally, but I have seen the provision in my cc "agreements" (aka adhesion contracts, sorta kinda, yes, I'm exaggerating) and it is my understanding that the provisions is used regularly.

ETA to Ty -- Oh, yes, they can and do jack up the fees/rates after you have a balance. What, you didn't read your agreements in detail? Shame.

Quote:

Plus all the free soda you want from the firm!

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't think a kayak is really a "boat," but I could be wrong.

Spankme, this bill does the opposite of what you seem to think should be done. I can't remember if you were defending the bill or not because now I get you mixed up with club. One of y'all needs to move, or get a color avatar, or something. Maybe seem taller. Anyway, everyone on both sides of the aisle on here who has said what this bill is doing (rather than what they think it should do, or asking questions only) has made it clear that it makes it harder for people who are genuinely financially fucked, and not really much if any harder for people who are actually pretty well-set financially but are abusing the system. So one would think you could come out and say that the bill seems to be a bad one. But that may be beyond your shill-for-the-R-party capabilities.

If that is true, the bill is a bad one. I never defended the bill. This was my first diatribe on the subject. I disagree with the party all the time. I have been trying for years to get the pro-life stuff out of the platform (mainly here in California). I sent a letter similar to the stuff I posted here to all the Republican Congressman and Senators I have raised money for. However, I don't know how much good it will do because I am sure the Credit Card companies have raised a lot more than I have.

Quote:

Works for the guy working teh night shift at Ford too. What if they said no? Then you have to get someone to accept your balance transfer. It may surprise you to know that the CC cos. lining the halls of the student union in the Fall don't also set up shop outside the factories.

But I'm getting too far down the road of devil's advocate here. Yeah, freedom of contract, etc. But this bill isn't mainly about freedom of contract, it's about cutting off access to bankruptcy for people who may deserve it. The screening mechanism is simply too blunt.

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
However, I don't know how much good it will do because I am sure the Credit Card companies have raised a lot more than I have.

I know you are being slightly tongue-in-cheek on this, but how do you feel about what this says about our system?

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Plus all the free soda you want from the firm!

True. Although this makes absolutely no sense. However, you're on EST, so I suppose you could be drunk by now.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Works for the guy working teh night shift at Ford too. What if they said no? Then you have to get someone to accept your balance transfer. It may surprise you to know that the CC cos. lining the halls of the student union in the Fall don't also set up shop outside the factories.

But I'm getting too far down the road of devil's advocate here. Yeah, freedom of contract, etc. But this bill isn't mainly about freedom of contract, it's about cutting off access to bankruptcy for people who may deserve it. The screening mechanism is simply too blunt.

I was just giving a sample-of-one-Sebby-response. You're definitely not playing my devil's advocate. I know this bill sucks.

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm just objecting to the "credit card companies are evil" "innocent borrowers need protection" bullshit being peddled around here. Frankly, I don't see a need to reform the BK laws. They seem to be working fine as is.

While I pay buckets-full of money for my PPO, and I've received adequate services in exchange for those dollars, my experience does not necessarily lead me to believe that the health care system is working fine as it is, nor do I reflexively conclude that others who raise complaints about it are mere bullshit peddlers.

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I was just giving a sample-of-one-Sebby-response. You're definitely not playing my devil's advocate. I know this bill sucks.

Don't confuse me like that. With Sebby at least I know he's mainly correct about his foul truths. You, not so sure.

Caption, Please.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
http://www.lowculture.com/archives/i...s_colonial.jpg

Why? You looking to "borrow" a funny one without attribution for your blog?

[I think he loves his blog more than he loves us!]