US Senate seeks to end bankruptcy debate next week

Fri Mar 4, 2005 04:12 PM ET
By Kristin Roberts
WASHINGTON, March 4 (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate will seek to end debate and vote on a controversial bill next week to overhaul bankruptcy law and make it tougher for consumers to abandon their debts.

Democrats still have amendments pending, and the most contentious measure that served effectively to kill the bankruptcy bill in the last Congress will likely be filed on Tuesday, Senate Democrats said on Friday.

That amendment, called a "poison pill" by Republicans, would prohibit abortion protesters from filing bankruptcy to avoid paying court-ordered fines for their protests. It will be offered by New York Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer.

Other amendments are also expected on Monday and Tuesday, but "none rise to the level in terms of polarizing the parties as the Schumer amendment," said Travis Plunkett, spokesman for the Consumer Federation of America, which opposes the bankruptcy legislation. <snip>

http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=bondsNews&storyID=7813752

board but this bill goes TOO FAR! Those who are in debt due to medical bills will be screwed as will military people. Also, credit card companies should not be allowed to aggressivly market their cocaine.....err, I mean....."products".

I practice in the area and I am curious, what about the Code do you think is not currently working?

Fraudulent conveyance and preference claims against insiders who do stock option trades within a year of bk seem to be a rape that goes unpunished.

Kenny Boy, et al seem to have made out like bandits in the year prior to the collapse of Enron and I haven't heard if they have been pursued to recover the gains from sale of stock using insider knowledge.

transfer at all? Its just the insider disposing of property he already owns. I suspect what you are really getting at is trying to class the initial conveyance of the option in the first place as the fraudulent or preferential transfer and if that's the case doesn't code already provide for that?

greedy mean spirited heartless usurer feeding slime bucket of a bill. If the volume wasn't up so high on Social Security it would be getting more of the attention it so sorely needs.

That amendment, called a "poison pill" by Republicans, would prohibit abortion protesters from filing bankruptcy to avoid paying court-ordered fines for their protests. It will be offered by New York Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer.

I'm totally against this bankruptcy reform, but that statement above just floors me. Maybe I don't understand the term "poison pill". Can I get some aid?

that render it unacceptable for the republicans to adopt.

The Schumer bill has sunk this POS bill many times in the past. If the bill is passed with this amendment, no convicted abortion clinic bomber can declare bankruptcy in order to escape the fines and damages imposed by the court. Unfortunately, I think it will fail this time. Something like 18 dems already crossed the aisle to allow credit card companies to charge interest rates over 30% if they feel so inclined. I hope I'm wrong.

but it will never pass when it goes back to the House. There are too many Christian Coalition Republicans that see this as some church-mandated moral issue. It's one of the few times when their hypocrisy can be used against them in a meaningful way. :)

Why aren't our reps screaming from the rooftops what this bill will mean to the average working American who falls into debt through no fault of his own?

This was SOP for repukes during the two Clinton administrations and their faux outrage was over nothing in comparison to the sweeping changes that this bill will entail.

What the hell am I missing??

I, too, thought it had passed the Senate. Now this headline except that the story is no longer there. I suspect this was a "whoops!" story. I'd be curious to know where it came from and how it happened.

Tell me when the vote was. The Senate was still voting on ammendments yesterday.

From Senate.gov:
Floor Schedule

Friday, Mar 4, 2005

The Senate convened at 9:30 a.m. and adjourned at 1:20 p.m. No record votes were taken.

Next meeting: Monday, Mar 7, 2005

2:00 p.m.: Convene and resume consideration of S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

There is still time call your Senators again!

-Hoot

Edit to note I started a thread in GD:Politics

The Democrats have already sold their constituents out to the Republican credit card companies. The Amendment has no chance of being part of the legislation- and there's not enough votes to stop cloture on a filibuster.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Credit Card Penalties, Fees Bury Debtors
Senate Nears Action On Bankruptcy Curbs

By Kathleen Day and Caroline E. Mayer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 6, 2005; Page A01

For more than two years, special-education teacher Fatemeh Hosseini worked a second job to keep up with the $2,000 in monthly payments she collectively sent to five banks to try to pay $25,000 in credit card debt.

Even though she had not used the cards to buy anything more, her debt had nearly doubled to $49,574 by the time the Sunnyvale, Calif., resident filed for bankruptcy last June. That is because Hosseini's payments sometimes were tardy, triggering late fees ranging from $25 to $50 and doubling interest rates to nearly 30 percent. When the additional costs pushed her balance over her credit limit, the credit card companies added more penalties.

"I was really trying hard to make minimum payments," said Hosseini, whose financial problems began in the late 1990s when her husband left her and their three children. "All of my salary was going to the credit card companies, but there was no change in the balances because of that interest and those penalties."

Punitive charges -- penalty fees and sharply higher interest rates after a payment is late -- compound the problems of many financially strapped consumers, sometimes making it impossible for them to dig their way out of debt and pushing them into bankruptcy. <snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10361-2005Mar5.html


Dumping on debtors

Republicans in Congress are pushing a bankruptcy bill that would hurt consumers while helping to enrich the credit card industry.
A Times Editorial
Published March 5, 2005

Prodded by the banking and credit industries, Republicans in Congress have been trying for years to make it more difficult for people to wipe away credit card debt by filing for personal bankruptcy. Their latest attempt would hurt consumers and impose no responsibility on a credit card industry that spreads easy credit around like free money.

In essence, the Senate bill would make it more difficult for people with modest resources to wipe out their debts completely by filing for bankruptcy. Now, consumers who file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy are given a new start and may go forward debt-free. Under Chapter 13, debts are reorganized and a payment plan is established.

The bill would limit Chapter 7 filings to those debtors who earn less than the median income in their state. That covers about 80 percent of bankruptcy filers. With some exceptions, nearly everyone else would have to file under Chapter 13.

The credit card industry wants the change because it says too many consumers are gaming the system - spending heavily on luxury items and then walking away from the bills. In 2003, one out of 73 households declared bankruptcy. But while there are irresponsible spenders who think nothing of racking up charges they know they can't pay, a significant proportion of debtors seeking relief have been financially crippled by medical expenses, unemployment or divorce. More than half of those over 65 who apply for bankruptcy are driven to it by medical bills. <snip>

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/05/Opinion/Dumping_on_debtors.shtml


Keep chance for fresh start
The Senate should add compassion to its bankruptcy bill
Friday, March 04, 2005

<snip> The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act would make it harder for the roughly 1.5 million people who file for bankruptcy annually to wipe away their debts entirely in bankruptcy court. We favor the idea of a means test that would require bankruptcy filers with the ability to repay a portion of their debts to do so -- especially if the evidence shows they have been gaming the system.

This legislation, though, sets the means test level low, treats all families alike -- as if they are guilty of profligate spending -- and is too rigid about letting judges look at contributing factors. Only those earning less than the median income, about $43,000, could discharge their debts through bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy judges would not be free to gauge individual circumstances and react to true, blameless hardship. So the bill would stack the law in credit card lenders' favor and against average citizens. The lenders would be freed from many results of their reckless issuing of credit cards and their risk-measurement failure to estimate the creditworthiness of their customers.

The result would sentence hundreds of thousands of families to be lenders' indentured servants, unable to escape crushing debts from not irresponsibility but huge medical bills, loss of employment or company pension failures. <snip>


http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1109941450323821.xml

It doesn't go to the full Senate until next week.

What country is this again????

the link you provide takes you to a page that says, "Sorry the story is not available." Did they pull it?

why the party leaders are not holding press conferences and howling and making a big stink about this so people can know what is going on.

and they don't want people to know what's going on.

get Dean to take this on before it is too late. Everyone knows the economy is going to tank soon. There will be homeless people everywhere if this passes.

Biden is already bought and sold but maybe some of the others can be brought back and a filibuster attempted.

Clinton knew this would hurt poor people so he vetoed it. He "saved" the dems who voted for it in order to keep the CC people in their pockets..but this time around there is no Clinton to veto it. Bush is LOVING the opportunity to pay back (BIG..HUGE) to the CC companies and banks...and at the smae time, put the hurt on a BUNCH of lawyers. Lawyers make a lot of money on bankruptcies, because they are pretty cut and dried, and the client does most of the actual legwork.

With the new changes, it will be "dangerous" for lawyers to even represent clients and if they do, they will have to charge so much, that impoverished people will not even be able to afford them..

This is why we have heard SS over and over and over.. the really dirty deal (THIS BILL) is going unnoticed by most people.

and even if we ever do get control back, it will be very hard to reinstate what has been taken away.

This should be front page and the first I heard of it was after-the-fact.

Let's post a list of the DEMOCRATIC NEOCONS who voted for it along with their contact information.

We need to make them sorry they sold us out AGAIN -- or they have NO incentive to change.

ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS
That's a concept they respect, being neocons and all.

Dems need to quit voting for these DINOs.

Any Dems that signed on to this bil needs outed and reprimanded.

We need a new party , when the neo dems vote so many times against us, it's time to look elsewhere.

There is little difference between dems and reps now, it's time to shake things up.

Biden underwent a replobtomy, and is not to be trusted, he's gaining favor with the CCs, and business for their $$$.

To hell with representing US.

Biden believes in rep-lite will win.We will show him the door.

Does anyone have a list of Dems who voted for it? I haven't been able to find one online anywhere.

We seriously need to post the rollcall of the traitors that knifed us in the back at the behest of their corporate sponsors.

Please keep this kicked. I have to know.

Kick!

A search should find it. I have the flu and am loopy. We really need to do a media blaster and senate blaster for this. It hasn't passed the senate yet from what I understand.

It's also righteously pissed-off, as you will be by the time you finish reading it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x110622

No, I don't love the CC companies. But there must be something to shake up the system, and this may just be big enough and terrible enough to cause change.

In 1789 the French did not attack the Bastille until they were placed in an untenable financial position when the price of bread skyrocketed. This law may be the equivalent of the price of French bread.

And dammit, we need change. This nation, in just four years, has become the antithesis of what it was intended to be. It began a century ago when corporations were given the false title of 'person-hood'. This let the corporations take over everything, from government to media, withe nothing to counter their propaganda. It's been a vicious circle, the corporations bribing the politicians with campaign contributions, and the politicians responding by giving the corporations more power.

I believe we have reached the point of corporate slavery. I believe it is time for a revolution or the nation is doomed. Although it may be doomed in any case, revolution or not. We may just have reached the tipping point, a threshold beyond which there is no recovery. I believe this law is a certain sign of it and unless it results in waking up the sheep to the fact that they are no owned, lock, stock, and barrel by the corporations, we are beyond hope.

It is wrong to blame democrats or republicans. They too are the slaves of the corporations, no longer independent or responsive to their constituents.

But I think the corporations are overlooking something. There has been a class war going on here for decades. They better hope that joe sixpack doesn't catch on or there will be a class war that they never intended. America is an armed and violent country. If the plebes catch on the title of 'corporate manager' may become the equivalent of hanging a target on one's back

The system then must collapse. And it certainly deserves it.

armageddon to give mankind wake up call. If this passes you are not going to see revolution in the streets. What you are going to see is quiet desparation, depression, and some lonely suicides on account of grinding unrelenting debt with no way out, not the romantic movement you have envisioned.

And I believe that there is nothing that will stop this from being law. I am not "hoping" for this, just predicting it. But I am certainly open to dissuasion.

You may argue with my conclusions, and given the control of the media, you may be right. I don't KNOW, but my feeling is that the media will not be critical in the reaction of the people to this "Corporate Slavery Act". Enough people have access to the 'net and read enough blogs and discussion boards that the corporate media may just be irrelevant.

Reactions like I believe will happen spread not linearly, but exponentially. Once a critical point is reached something will spark the anger and it will go from talking to shooting. I think the govt will be powerless to stop it.

Our only hope is that someone will step up and take us in the direction we need to go. Not violence, but control of corporate power.

As I have said before, "Living with corporations is like swimming with sharks. You want to keep an eye on them, and be able to kill them when they turn on you."

I think the current situation is proof of this.

http://www.womenenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2207

Schumer Could Derail Contentious Bankruptcy Law
Run Date: 03/04/05
By Allison Stevens
WeNews correspondent

Women's activists say that a new bankruptcy law--now at a critical juncture in the Senate--robs many women of a crucial protection from job loss and medical calamity and makes it harder to collect child-support payments.

snip

"Women who file for bankruptcy, like women generally, have less income and more family responsibilities," said Joan Entmacher, a lawyer at the National Women's Law Center, a non-profit organization in Washington, D.C. "So when something goes wrong . . . they're more likely to fall over the edge."

In 2003, more than 1 million women and children sought shelter under the bankruptcy code, according to Entmacher; 9 out of 10 women who filed did so because of the loss of a job, a medical emergency or family breakup, or a combination of one or more of those factors, not because they want to avoid paying the price for shopping sprees, Entmacher said. Complete figures for 2004 are not yet available.

Critics of the revisions also charge that the if the proposals become law it would become harder for women to collect alimony and child support.

The revisions affect women as debtors and also as ex-spouses of people who are debtors, added Travis Plunkett, legislative director at the Consumer Federation of America, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C. That is because, under the proposed revisions, parents with unpaid child support would need to compete with the debtors' credit card companies for the debtor's remaining assets. Moreover, the parents will not have the professional legal staffs that the credit card companies have access to.