Biden voted for Bankruptcy Bill which is now hurting Katrina victims

I'm curious as to how Joe Biden's candidacy plays out in those states. Not to mention if any of the candidates will make that an issue. Clinton was a no show and the vote and Obama the only candidate in the senate to vote against it.

I wonder if they hold any debates in New Orleans?

those votes apparently occurred after your day, otherwise you'd be able to spell bankruptcy and which correctly.

:popcorn:

one of my pet peeves too. people who CAN'T spell!! Use the spell checker before you send off a post!

and watch those dangling participles and relative clauses. :hi:

You might want to change your "no show" reference to the Truth!

knowing the facts. I'd definitely say that's a VALID reason for not being on the floor for the vote!


EDIT TO ADD -- Just researched that Clinton's heart surgery was in 2004, so I'm not sure which vote you're referring to. To the best of my understanding, there were votes in 2000 and 2001 - and again in 2005. How could Clinton's 2004 surgery have prevented Hillary from participating in any of those votes?

on the GD Politics Forum

you'll see what I mean soon enough.

what I mean?

Do you have anything to offer on the question?

When the campaign moves to those states he has to answer for it. How do you suggest he approach it?

he voted for it. If his reasons/explanations aren't sufficient to those who are angered by his vote, then he won't be able to garner their support. He's responsible for his actions and has to take the consequences.

I think Obama can nail him on this one. He's not going to be campaigning in those states in a vacuum. Those states, as well as the midwest, is where he is going to run into problems. States like Michigan and Ohio have gotten raked by job losses of the last 12 years. On the issue of health care (one of the prime reasons besides job loss why people file chapter 7) that vote is an albatross.

I think abortion is going to be another tough issue as well. He voted to ban partial birth abortions twice. Those abortions, which pro-life groups like to demonize, are done when the life of the mother is at stake.

I can understand if people don't have any interest in hearing his explanation. But I personally would like to hear him address the issue. There are a couple of amendments I find troublesome as his vote against them doesn't jibe with my impression of him as a person of integrity. It WILL be interesting to see how he's received in the areas you cite.

I know he voted against partial birth abortion, and even though I disagree, it wasn't a deal breaker for me as he consistently supports a woman's right and Roe v Wade. I didn't know that vote prohibited partial birth abortion when the mother's life was at stake. I assume his nay vote was in part because of his faith, but the Catholic church has always allowed abortion to prevent the mother's death.

He's a man of conviction and I've heard him say that some things are worth losing the nomination over. I assume he would vote the same way again, given the same circumstances that were pertinent at the time, rather than vote against what he believes to be the right thing to do.

EDIT TO ADD The late term abortion ban does allow abortion in the case of the mother's safety. This was taken from a creepy RW Right To Life site

What is the Partial-Birth Abortion act?
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act would ban performance of a partial-birth abortion except if it were necessary to the save a mother's life.

Trust me, you don't want to read what else they say regarding it, but in the interest of citing sources, I'll include the link.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/pbafacts.html

The bankruptcy bill did not hurt everybody. I think we needed corporate bankruptcy reform, but the bankruptcy bill wasn't quite as bad as people made it out to be.

but when people only get their limited knowledge from slanted/biased sites, what can you expect.....

they don't like. I remember when the bill was passed, all I heard on left wing radio were the "cons". It wasn't until recently that I got a bigger picture. If I was a divorced mother who was owed back child support, I would see the bill in a more favorable light.

I have two family members who filed for bankruptcy and they are both avid Biden supporters. If this is a deciding issue for any voter, than he/she should vote someone else, plain and simple.

Which part is ok?

There is a lack of exemptions for the ill, the disabled, the elderly who might have large bills from ill health....nothing to protect their homes and cars.

It does not exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious medical problems from means testing. It does not provide protection for medical debt homeowners. Homes and cars could be lost under this new plan if you have medical problems.

It does not preserve existing bankruptcy protections for
individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill or disabled family members.

There is no provision to insure elderly people in financial trouble who seek bankruptcy could keep their homes. Republicans voted down a provision for it, and 3 Democrats from states with big credit card industries joined them.

Making the minimum payment on a credit card can often cause you to go
further in debt with the credit card company. An amendment was voted down by all Republicans and a few Democrats that would have required this disclosure on the danger of minimum payments.

Let me know if I am wrong. Here is the extended archive from TPM who had experts covering this bill.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/bankruptcy/archives/2005/05/01-week/index.php

I was just reading there that if a family can not afford a lawyer to restructure their debt, then they have to drop out of filing. Those archives are just full of good stuff.

Even more: Here are the ones who voted against sensible amendments that would have helped people in need.

Corzine Amdt. No. 32; To preserve existing bankruptcy protections for
individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill or disabled
family members.

NAYS: Baucus, Bingaman, Carper, Johnson, Nelson
NOT VOTING: Biden, Inouye


Kennedy Amdt. No. 29; To provide protection for medical debt homeowners

NAYS: Bingaman, Carper, Johnson, Nelson
NOT VOTING: Biden, Inouye


Kennedy Amdt. No. 28.; To exempt debtors whose financial problems were
caused by serious medical problems from means testing.

NAYS: Biden, Carper, Johnson, Nelson
NOT VOTING: Dodd, Inouye


Akaka Amdt. No. 15; To require enhanced disclosure to consumers regarding
the consequences of making only minimum required payments in the repayment
of credit card debt, and for other purposes.

NAYS: Baucus, Biden, Carper, Johnson, Nelson
NOT VOTING: Inouye


Feingold Amdt. No. 17.; To provide a homestead floor for the elderly

NAYS: Biden, Carper, Nelson
NOT VOTING: Inouye


Durbin Amdt. No. 16, As Modified.; To protect servicemembers and veterans
from means testing in bankruptcy, to disallow certain claims by lenders
charging usurious interest rates to servicemembers, and to allow
servicemembers to exempt property based on the law of the State of their
premilitary residence. (I think this servicemember amendment eventually passed...but I don't think any other did)

NAYS: Baucus, Biden, Byrd, Carper, Johnson, Nelson
NOT VOTING: Dayton, Inouye


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/v...

Which part is ok?

There is a lack of exemptions for the ill, the disabled, the elderly who might have large bills from ill health....nothing to protect their homes and cars.

It does not exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious medical problems from means testing. It does not provide protection for medical debt homeowners. Homes and cars could be lost under this new plan if you have medical problems.

It does not preserve existing bankruptcy protections for
individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill or disabled family members.

There is no provision to insure elderly people in financial trouble who seek bankruptcy could keep their homes. Republicans voted down a provision for it, and 3 Democrats from states with big credit card industries joined them.

Making the minimum payment on a credit card can often cause you to go
further in debt with the credit card company. An amendment was voted down by all Republicans and a few Democrats that would have required this disclosure on the danger of minimum payments.

Let me know if I am wrong. Here is the extended archive from TPM who had experts covering this bill.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/bankruptcy/archives/2005/05/01-week/index.php

I was just reading there that if a family can not afford a lawyer to restructure their debt, then they have to drop out of filing. Those archives are just full of good stuff.

Even more: Here are the ones who voted against sensible amendments that would have helped people in need.

Corzine Amdt. No. 32; To preserve existing bankruptcy protections for
individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill or disabled
family members.

NAYS: Baucus, Bingaman, Carper, Johnson, Nelson
NOT VOTING: Biden, Inouye


Kennedy Amdt. No. 29; To provide protection for medical debt homeowners

NAYS: Bingaman, Carper, Johnson, Nelson
NOT VOTING: Biden, Inouye


Kennedy Amdt. No. 28.; To exempt debtors whose financial problems were
caused by serious medical problems from means testing.

NAYS: Biden, Carper, Johnson, Nelson
NOT VOTING: Dodd, Inouye


Akaka Amdt. No. 15; To require enhanced disclosure to consumers regarding
the consequences of making only minimum required payments in the repayment
of credit card debt, and for other purposes.

NAYS: Baucus, Biden, Carper, Johnson, Nelson
NOT VOTING: Inouye


Feingold Amdt. No. 17.; To provide a homestead floor for the elderly

NAYS: Biden, Carper, Nelson
NOT VOTING: Inouye


Durbin Amdt. No. 16, As Modified.; To protect servicemembers and veterans
from means testing in bankruptcy, to disallow certain claims by lenders
charging usurious interest rates to servicemembers, and to allow
servicemembers to exempt property based on the law of the State of their
premilitary residence. (I think this servicemember amendment eventually passed...but I don't think any other did)

NAYS: Baucus, Biden, Byrd, Carper, Johnson, Nelson
NOT VOTING: Dayton, Inouye


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/v...

But most people can still file bankruptcy, same as they always could. People below median income, people who get sick and can't work, etc. It would have been nice if the bill had had more protections, but that doesn't mean that every person who has medical bills cannot file bankruptcy. Or low income grandmas are going to be thrown out of their homes. If we didn't hyperventilate all the time, maybe people would pay attention a little more often.

It does limit what chapter they file for. Chapter 7 filings have been vastly reduced which completely wipes out all debt. Instead, people are forced to liquidate all their assetts.

Using state median income guidlines is also a lousy barometer. In the poorest states in this country like Missippi and Luoissiana they are not the same as in NY or MA. Those states are amongst the poorest in the nation.

A lot of midwestern states that are losing industry are catching up. As people start making less the median comes down putting more over that thresh hold.

I could declare Bankruptcy...
$250,000 for my fathers forced hospice care and medical bills. thats after the insurance company cheated him out of 40 years of insurance payments on a life insurance policy. convincing an 80 yo man he would die in an accident. oh and while were at it how about changing that long term care insurance to an accidental policy too? done. 10 years of payments there.GONE! He died of prostate cancer. two years of ebbing away in a Hospice bed. a natural death/

$250,000 just to keep my house. Dad co signed and Thus Joint tenant. It would be one thing if I actually got to spend that money on myself (medical bills, boat, college for my kid. etc) but no, I am behind the 8 ball from what the insurance comp did to us. and the forced Hospice part? he did not want to die in a hospice. (as he had seen that with friends) when he realized what happened, how they took advantage of him. he tried to kill himself to spare me from the Debt. The county he was in forced hospice care in the county facility. ( a reppuke bastion.) I could not take him home as I was "not upset at his motives nor his attempt" it was then assumed I "Would facilitate his death"!

The house was in Joint tenancy between he and I, Thus, part of his estate to plunder.
I wont file. when the economy gets better Under a Biden administration I will be able to pay mine off.
Bankruptcy is the last resort. I would qualify (under the new rules) if I chose to do it. I then would have to sell my home. the rules were changed to no longer allow people to run up a bill and skate. As too many had done already, (hiding their assets in other states country's etc.)

Under the old rules Bankruptcy was painless. in a Business class I took once. (under the old rules) Taught how to hide your assets, and declare Bankruptcy to enhance your bottom line/portfolio.

now it is painful to declare bankruptcy, as it should be.

oh and where do I work? I am self employed A.K.A. UNEMPLOYED.

It's the individual filer that can not.

The bill places restriction on those that can file for chapter 7 which wipes out all of your debts. Mentioned above, it is false that it doesn't effect those making under median income. Then again, we have to specific in stating that it is THE STATES MEDIAN income. State like Loissianna and Missippi are some of the poorest states in the nation. The Median incomes are not that high.

Secondly, it also must be determined that the filer can not pay a minimum $100 a month.

Good luck on that.

wealthy as opposed to individual filers? explain as to how wealthy can hide their assets? I don't see it? if so then, I will follow up and file, but alas I will lose my house, last I checked.

If someone racks up 100K in debt, why should they NOT have to pay part of it back? It all just rolls downhill otherwise, and we ALL pay for it. Same with people who just charge off their debts. We all pay for it. I'm just not willing to pay for a slacker that ran up a bunch of debt, and now wants the rest of us to pay his/her way. Look, you act like this affected you personally. My guess is, it hasn't. It's just one of maybe 4 things you can slam Biden on, and fail to notice that the bill was passed by 302 to 126. A Lot of people wanted to see this change, and frankly, it may help to stop the hemorage of people taking the easy way out after they rack up thousands in debt.

I say, good.

had a medical problem not covered by insurance. Or tried to start a business and failed. The idea was to give a person a fresh start, and that has good effects on society. We are too punishment oriented these days, and are willing to do damage to ourselves just to punish someone else. If that debt trickles up and we all end up paying it, it's only a sort of insurance against the day we might be the one in the bad situation.

It was recognized that the bankrupt made mistakes, but still deserved a fresh start. The punitive attitude assumes full, well paid employment is always available to everyone and also assumes that everyone has complete control over their life and will be able to arrange everything satisfactorily for the future. I debated a wingnut one time who said people should never have children until they are financially stable. Suppose you are when you have the child but something happens ten years down the line and then you aren't?

If we judged it all off of Mississippi's median income, it would screw most of the people under median income in Los Angeles. If we judged it off of Los Angeles, it would still screw LA, because a disproportionate number of people would not be exempt. You have to look at COLAs to determine how much an income group could afford to repay, and median incomes are one of the most reliable indicators for that (in theory, at least).

Look, I'm not going to argue the merits of the Bankrupcy Bill, because there are few to none, but it's not a dealbreaker for most folks. If any Senator who voted for it has a halfway decent excuse for doing so, it's Biden.

on the long term care policies.
You might want to be on the look out for class action suits. LTC insurance is nothing but theft.

I do financial planning and I recommend to all my clients that they do some planning for their long term care. Additionally, I frequently visit residential care homes and assisted living facilities in my area to assist my clients in making the decision of where to go if they need it. Fewer than half of them accept state aid, and the number is shrinking as they prefer to deal with private residents than try to get their payments from the state. So that means that most people getting long term care in them are using their own assets to pay for it or have LTC policies paying for it.

A lot of people buy policies from smooth-talking salespeople with shady companies. I always tell people to look past the charm of the agent and the glossy brochures to the financial ratings of the company. Only deal with A or better rated companies. They have the money they need to pay claims are not likely to try to finagle out of them. Also, try to get the insurance when you are young and healthy enough to pay a low premium. Mine costs me $40 a month.

If I'm reading correctly, they convinced an 80 year old man to convert life and LTC policies into accidental ones? If that's the case, then they committed a HEINOUS violation. There are strict laws and regulations concerning suitability of products and transfers of existing policies. Clearly, the company and the agent were not acting in the best interest of your father. I'm very sorry that happened to your family.

seeing another bankruptcy bill thread. AFTER I responded, I read the rest of your post and see you do pose valid questions.

Again, I'm sorry for the personal attack -

Peace?

I have thick skin.

vote for this; I do remember at the time it was a travesty.

looking into Clinton and Obama, but am getting bogged down in amendments and not sure if that's the issue (Biden voting against certain amendments) or if there's an actual BILL that was voted on in 2005.

Dodd's site (which is what the link takes us to) indicates there was a bill that was voted on in the early 2000's, and additional votes in subsequent years. People keep referring to 2005, so I'm working my way through. I'm hopeful that someone who really understands this comes along and sheds some light. In the meantime, I'll keep slogging away. I'd really like some clarity on this as it's an issue that is raised repeatedly (as I'm sure you know!)

I mean, he runs unopposed in the primary and in the general. Literally. Why did he have to cow-tow to the credit card companies?

Oh, and those credit card rates?.... You fill in the blank.

Since he's not gaining anything from credit card companies, why are you assuming that he's kowtowing to them?

First of all, credit cards are totally voluntary. No one forces anyone to get a card. Secondly, your "rate" depends on a lot of factors. Your current income to debt ratio, your ability to pay, your credit history, the way you currently pay your credit cards, and how much you owe every other creditor, and how long you have owed them. If you're not happy with the "rates", then by all means, pay them off and close them, or, if qualified, transfer to a lower rate card company.

read this -

http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=102959

I think there was a 200 bill and a 2001.

The 2005 bill is the one that Biden voted for.

I think he also voted for Welfare Reform which also gives tax breaks for employers who hire Welfare Recipients as well.

inthebrain said;
I think he also voted for Welfare Reform which also gives tax breaks for employers who hire Welfare Recipients as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------

What's your feeble point? So what.

2001 bills?

Thanks again.

He was not in Congress.

That's why I loathe him. :mad:

Or not?

is the largest employer in my small state of Delaware.
what else do you think he would have done? Who is his constituency,in this case? He had to protect those jobs.

As President, he would be representing the entire country; as some may argue,he does very well now.

As I have said on here many times, I am someone that the bill would have helped, when I was raising my two (small at the time)daughters.
It would have prevented their father,who had a welding business, from skipping out on his children's child support. This man was behind thousands of dollars(he only was required to pay 30.00 a week) for both of them and was able to walk away. In my state at the time,the courts totally favored the men and if you had him in court the judges treated you as though you were trying "to stick it to him". I worked 7 days a week, to support my girls, until I met my present husband ,who assumed the responsibilities that my ex ran out on.
The reason I left my first husband, I did not think God put me here to be a punching bag. I went to high school with my first husband and there
was never any indication that he would be that kind of man. This bill would have prevented my ex from getting away this.

I like Biden but choosing credit card companies over the "people" is the reason I will never vote for him. Same as Nelson in my state Florida.

He didn't choose credit card companies over people. What don't you people understand? Credit cards are OPTIONAL. They are NOT mandatory. If you don't like credit card terms, them STOP using them, and live within your means. It's just that simple.

This is nothing more than a lame excuse for people like you to find a reason to NOT support him. Fine. Don't. But stop with the woe-is-me stuff.....it's just not true. By the way, bankruptcies cost the average american $400.00 a year. Simply because of increased cost. I'm not OK with that. I'll say this one more time;

CREDIT CARDS ARE OPTIONAL. Use them or not. If you do use them, you are RESPONSIBLE for the debt.
End of story.

It's not like he's a first term senator. He's been in the US Senate since the 1970's and is probably the most well known politician in the state. If he's so worried about his re-election despite ridiculous incumbency advantage, that he still can't stand up to special interests then he's really not the kind of President I'm looking for.

To me, this is a non issue, and it would be for any candidate, not just Biden. But people have abused BK's. People need to live within their means. Period. Maybe you should go read the entire bill before placing the blame on people who voted for it, and stop getting your limited knowledge from biased sources. Here's one part of it;

Means test for Chapter 7
Although the intent of the law was to make it more difficult for individuals to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 7, under which most of their debts are forgiven (or discharged) and to force individuals to file under Chapter 13 under which part of all of the debts are repaid under a plan, it has, in practice, not substantially made a large effect. Approximately 85% of debtors are not subject to its "means test" and a large percentage of the rest are able to "pass" the means test.(meaning, it doesn't affect that many people)

Under the old law, filers had a presumption of eligibility to file under Chapter 7, with the final determination made by bankruptcy judges, who evaluated the specific nature of each bankruptcy. In lieu of this judicial discretion, the new law substitutes a means test to determine whether filers have enough income to pay some portion of their debts, and thus file under Chapter 13.

The means test applies to filers whose gross income (based on the six month period prior to filing), is above the median income in their state (ranging from $72,451 in Massachusetts to $42,290 in West Virginia, as of 2005). Individuals whose incomes are below the median automatically qualify for Chapter 7. Filers whose incomes are above the median must then calculate their Disposable Monthly Income (DMI) to determine whether they are able to make payments on their debts sufficient to qualify them for Chapter 13. The DMI is determined by subtracting priority debt payments, secured debt payments, Internal Revenue Service determined expense allowances, taxes and certain other expenses from a filer’s monthly income. If the DMI is less than $100 per month, they are permitted to file under Chapter 7. If the DMI is above $100, they must file under Chapter 13.

This formula effectively rewards filers with assets that are heavily mortgaged and debtors with larger amounts of unsecured debt. Since alimony and child support payments are "priority debts" it also has the effect of making it easier for people who owe back domestic support obligations (such as "deadbeat dads") to file under Chapter 7 than other debtors (but the child support is not dischargeable).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Prevention_and_Consumer_Protection_Act

Here is the statement Joe gave, on the floor of the Senate, regarding why he supported the bill;


Floor Statement: Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, several years ago, when we were considering this legislation, I spoke here on the Senate floor about some important provisions that I think have been overlooked in our discussions. In my remarks today I will repeat what I said back then, in March of 2001.

We have heard a lot in recent days about how this bill lacks compassion--specifically, that it will hurt women and children who depend on alimony and child support.

Critics claim that by making sure that more money is paid back to other creditors, this bill will make it harder for women and children to get what is coming to them.

I am particularly proud of my record of protecting women and children during my career in the Senate. That record includes the Violence Against Women Act to protect women threatened by domestic violence.

I am here again today to show that, contrary to a lot of the rhetoric that has been tossed around, this bill actually improves the situation of women and children who depend on child support. It specifically targets the problems they face under the current bankruptcy system into a virtual extension of the current national family support collection system.

There may be other aspects of this legislation that we can debate: the balance between creditors and debtors, between different kinds of creditors, or between different kinds of debtors. But on the question of child support and alimony, there should be no dispute.

Because this bill strengthens the collection of alimony. Period.

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=234426

is that he listens and takes care of his constituency. Duh. Delaware is the "registry" state, banks, credit cards, etc. and employs a lot of Delawarians. Do you think he would be smart in abandoning these people? He takes care of his own and I like that. This "Bankruptcy Bill" is about the only straw the anti-Joe crowd can hang on to, and let's not forget the plagarism event (which he explained numerous times). Wow, compare these two events to the criminal behavior of the Right. What a comparison..

Wasn't intentionally done;

In 1987, Joe Biden ran as a Democratic presidential candidate. When the campaign began, he was considered a frontrunner because of his moderate image. However, the campaign ended when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party. Though Biden had correctly credited the original author in all speeches but one, the one where he failed to make mention of the originator was caught on video. In the video Biden is filmed repeating a stump speech by Kinnock, with only minor modifications. “Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go a university? Why is it that my wife . . . is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? . . . Is it because they didn't work hard? My ancestors who worked in the coal mines of northeast Pennsylvania and would come after 12 hours and play football for four hours? It's because they didn't have a platform on which to stand.” After Biden withdrew from the race it was learned that he had correctly credited Kinnock on all other occasions. He failed to do so, however, in the Iowa speech that was recorded and distributed to reporters (with a parallel video of Kinnock) by aides to Michael Dukakis, the eventual nominee. Dukakis fired John Sasso, his campaign manager and long-time Chief of Staff, but Biden's campaign could not recover.

nice homework btw.

One thing you need to know here - If It's Sunday - It's Biden Bankruptcy Bill day :eyes:

and I always do my homework. Always. :-) One thing I can't stand is people who's views have been tainted by either the left or the right. I prefer to gather the FACTS, then make an informed decision on the issue. People go to these biased websites, and read opinionated garbage, and think it's fact. Just this morning, I was reading something on Daily Kos,(regarding the BK bill) which was COMPLETELY false, and yet, I bet people bought it. They actually claimed that Florida homestead exemption was limitless, and in fact, it is not. It's 25K. They stated it as a fact, so I, as usual, think they are anything but truth seekers.

He was working on the Bork hearings at the same time that he was campaigning for president. He was putting a great deal of energy into the hearings, as he felt it was vital to the future of the Supreme Court, but it affected his campaign performance.

Meanwhile, he was suffering from debilitating headaches that later turned out to be the result of a brain aneurysm that almost killed him.

Bookmarking to reference in the future.

Welcome to DU, 1corona4u! :hi:

ps -- I'll take that Corona! And some chips & guac, too! ;)

Thanks! Snacks are on me, since I have the cash to pay for them. ;-)

and lost everything I own, I think I'm qualified to speak to this. To suggest that people in this state and Louisiana are upset with Biden about a bankruptcy bill he voted to support only shows that you're a fool who is making inane attempts to turn people away from one of our finest, and most decent, legislators. It's one thing to say you disagree with Sen. Biden on his vote, but to just make crap up in order to convince others not to support him because your candidate's popularity is waning only reflects poorly on the rest of the human race, since I assume you're one of us. And this isn't the first time I've seen you try this against Sen. Biden. You never mention anything about what any other candidate is doing to address your complaints. You're using one controversial vote Biden made for one bill in order to dissuade voters from supporting him, disregarding everything else this man has worked hard for over 35 years. And frankly, I probably would have voted the same way Sen. Biden did on the bankruptcy bill because 1.)we desperately needed bankruptcy reform; 2.)the bill helped save many small business owners, and god knows they can use some help in this current corporate-dominated economic climate; 3.)Joe Biden doesn't deal with lobbyists which, unlike the "top tier" candidates, is why he doesn't have much campaign cash, and what he does have is all coming from ordinary Americans, so the decision to vote in favor of this bill wasn't so he could stuff his pockets w/corporate cash; 4.)the Republicans were in charge and in order to get anything done you sometimes have to go along with bills that you aren't in total agreement on; 5.) Joe Biden is not one to sit on his hands doing nothing waiting years for the political tide to turn. If you want to criticize him for that, go ahead. Personally, I respect people of action, and more often than not there are things in bills that legislators don't like, but they vote for the bill for the things they do like. Improvements can always be made later. When it comes to a president, I like someone who is strong, determined, and knows more than one way how to move the ball forward.

The victims of Katrina have been given an endless array of means to help with their bills and extensions on paying those bills. If people aren't getting the help they need, and there are many and it is a problem, it has to do with the Bush administration's red tape on the federal dollars that have been appropriated for Katrina victims, as well as state and local officials. The only thing that has to do with Joe Biden is that he's been involved in trying to make it easier to cut through that red tape. I guess you think that's a bad thing.

Are there instances where people are trying to file for bankruptcy because of Katrina-related expenses and are unable to do so? I think that's a safe assumption. When you have millions of people involved you can find examples of anything. There have also been a lot of people trying to fraudulently use Katrina for their financial benefit. A lot. Bankruptcy is not the appropriate way to receive financial assistance after natural disasters. New Orleans is desperately trying to get business to return to the Crescent City. It's the economy, stupid. People of New Orleans need jobs. If the city is trying to lure business back, you're not going to do it by telling businesses that they are out all the money they are owed and it will be that way after the next hurricane hits. Businesses, especially smaller businesses, can't survive that way.

One other thing--not that you care--every time someone files for bankruptcy a lot of hard working people end up paying for it. If you think it simply comes out of the billions of dollars made by large corporations, you're conveniently kidding yourself. Corporations balance their expenses, including bankruptcies, with the money they're taking in. In other words, the consumer pays. I don't know about you, but I can't afford to pay much more for the things I need. Small business owners really get hurt. It's much harder for them to adjust their prices to make up for the bankruptcy losses because their larger competitors can price their product in ways that will drive the small business owner out of business. It's hard enough for the small business owner as it is. We're talking about everything from local vendors, small privately-owned local banks, roofing companies, privately owned water and gas distributors, local grocery stores, local car dealers, I could go on endlessly. But you're not thinking about these people, who happen to employ a lot of Americans, particularly in smaller towns and cities. You don't care about them, the victims of Katrina, or anyone else, except the candidate you're doing this for. And you don't care much about the truth, either. And for the record, I personally think Joe Biden would make one damn good president. He's tough, compassionate, and--take note of this because it's important--he looks at the whole, big picture, and that's imperative to our nation's success during these complicated, challenging times.

and you're right. We all pay for people who file BK's.

Which part is ok?

There is a lack of exemptions for the ill, the disabled, the elderly who might have large bills from ill health....nothing to protect their homes and cars.

It does not exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious medical problems from means testing. It does not provide protection for medical debt homeowners. Homes and cars could be lost under this new plan if you have medical problems.

It does not preserve existing bankruptcy protections for
individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill or disabled family members.

There is no provision to insure elderly people in financial trouble who seek bankruptcy could keep their homes. Republicans voted down a provision for it, and 3 Democrats from states with big credit card industries joined them.

Making the minimum payment on a credit card can often cause you to go
further in debt with the credit card company. An amendment was voted down by all Republicans and a few Democrats that would have required this disclosure on the danger of minimum payments.

Let me know if I am wrong. Here is the extended archive from TPM who had experts covering this bill.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/bankruptcy/archives/2005/05/01-week/index.php

I was just reading there that if a family can not afford a lawyer to restructure their debt, then they have to drop out of filing. Those archives are just full of good stuff.

Even more: Here are the ones who voted against sensible amendments that would have helped people in need.

Corzine Amdt. No. 32; To preserve existing bankruptcy protections for
individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill or disabled
family members.

NAYS: Baucus, Bingaman, Carper, Johnson, Nelson
NOT VOTING: Biden, Inouye


Kennedy Amdt. No. 29; To provide protection for medical debt homeowners

NAYS: Bingaman, Carper, Johnson, Nelson
NOT VOTING: Biden, Inouye


Kennedy Amdt. No. 28.; To exempt debtors whose financial problems were
caused by serious medical problems from means testing.

NAYS: Biden, Carper, Johnson, Nelson
NOT VOTING: Dodd, Inouye


Akaka Amdt. No. 15; To require enhanced disclosure to consumers regarding
the consequences of making only minimum required payments in the repayment
of credit card debt, and for other purposes.

NAYS: Baucus, Biden, Carper, Johnson, Nelson
NOT VOTING: Inouye


Feingold Amdt. No. 17.; To provide a homestead floor for the elderly

NAYS: Biden, Carper, Nelson
NOT VOTING: Inouye


Durbin Amdt. No. 16, As Modified.; To protect servicemembers and veterans
from means testing in bankruptcy, to disallow certain claims by lenders
charging usurious interest rates to servicemembers, and to allow
servicemembers to exempt property based on the law of the State of their
premilitary residence. (I think this servicemember amendment eventually passed...but I don't think any other did)

NAYS: Baucus, Biden, Byrd, Carper, Johnson, Nelson
NOT VOTING: Dayton, Inouye


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/v...

madfloridian said;
There is a lack of exemptions for the ill, the disabled, the elderly who might have large bills from ill health....nothing to protect their homes and cars.

It does not exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious medical problems from means testing. It does not provide protection for medical debt homeowners. Homes and cars could be lost under this new plan if you have medical problems.

It does not preserve existing bankruptcy protections for
individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill or disabled family members.

There is no provision to insure elderly people in financial trouble who seek bankruptcy could keep their homes. Republicans voted down a provision for it, and 3 Democrats from states with big credit card industries joined them.
__________________________________________________________________

Stop the bleeding heart stuff.....This bill was designed to stop abuse. If they go to court, and they are legitimate, then they will be able to file chapter 7. They don't need any other amendment to protect them. Here's an excerpt addressing the victims of Katrina, and I'm confident that any legitimate cause for a BK would also be given approval;

Hurricane Katrina bankruptcies
"Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee noted "If someone in Katrina is down and out, and has no possibility of being able to repay 40 percent or more of their debts, then the new bankruptcy law doesn't apply".
The Justice Department's US Trustee program has since said it would relax the strict Chapter 7 rules for disaster victims, including those affected by Hurricane Katrina. The Justice Department trustees oversee the administration of bankruptcy cases, and have discretion in ruling over bankruptcy filings. They also said the trustees would not challenge debtors who couldn't meet paperwork requirements because documents were destroyed by the hurricane, and that victims of Hurricane Katrina may skip the credit counseling requirement before filing."

I am speaking of ordinary people all over America. The posting I made was in general for all, not Katrina.

That was a terrible bill, and there was no reason for it.

It's bleeding hearts like you and neocons at the other extreme who are burying this country so deep in debt that these arguments about bankruptcy law will be merely academic, because everyone will be broke and there won't be any money to bail anyone out. It's killing the Middle Class. There are proper ways of helping people who need it, but reality dictates that we can't help everyone all the time who find themselves financially challenged. It's a hard fact of life that we'd better come to grips with. It's one of those inconvenient truths. Is there room for improvement? Sure, but we have to get over this notion that we can protect everyone from hardship. Life is hard. If you want to place blame, blame God, not Sen. Biden.

I am going to say bye. You used the word neocon in the same sentence with me.

Not going to take it. Bye.

Hurricane Katrina bankruptcies
"Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee noted "If someone in Katrina is down and out, and has no possibility of being able to repay 40 percent or more of their debts, then the new bankruptcy law doesn't apply".
The Justice Department's US Trustee program has since said it would relax the strict Chapter 7 rules for disaster victims, including those affected by Hurricane Katrina. The Justice Department trustees oversee the administration of bankruptcy cases, and have discretion in ruling over bankruptcy filings. They also said the trustees would not challenge debtors who couldn't meet paperwork requirements because documents were destroyed by the hurricane, and that victims of Hurricane Katrina may skip the credit counseling requirement before filing."

I speak of ordinary people, ones who might have to quit work to care for their ill family members...ones who have medical debt and can not afford the legal services.

anyone I want, anywhere I choose. The fact is, that there are going to be exceptions to the law. As has been pointed out, if you are a slacker and are trying to beat the system, you won't be able to. If you have a legitimate reason, you will be able to file chapter 7. That's the reality, not the one you keep suggesting. You're simply making an assumption.

when it comes to DU. Most of us here are good honest people who would not try to "beat the system".

I much resent your term.

ridiculous. I never said anything about the people on DU. How did you get from what I said, to you being offended? Did you cheat the system? Did I say you did? Of course not. Right wing talking points? That's a little biased don't you think? People of all walks can be the ones who abuse the system.

If you "resent" my term, you took it personal for some reason, and perhaps your skin is too thin to be posting on a message board.

So bye. More and more of that lately. There is only way to handle those who call names and bait.

called anyone name. You have no valid argument, thus you must retreat. Not to mention that you injected yourself into this topic.

because it's inconvenient for you to do so. Look at your subject heading, "beating the system" is usually thought of as right wing talking points," as if there really aren't people beating the system. Let me tell you some more inconvenient truths, since you refused to address my post on the details of Biden's vote on the bankruptcy bill. Taking advantage of the system is widespread. Democrats use the phrase, or some equivalent of it, all the time in referring to corporations. Republicans use it referring to the public. And they're both right. The public is doing it, corporations are doing it, even foreign entities are doing it. It's the culture of materialism and always getting what we want which we've allowed to flourish here in America. It pushes against reality and pretty soon reality is going to give us a big shove back. You can justifiable argue about the finer points of the bankruptcy bill, but quit pretending that responsibility is optional here in America and that anyone who gets in over their heads should be bailed out. I can't afford it and I'm not leaving beyond my means. Get real. Literally.

The rich usually beat the system. The poor and lower middle class are usually caused by serious life events beyond their control.

I am accepting the reality that this bill was by and for corporations. Period.

But then you will probably pooh pooh Krugman's views as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/opinion/08krugman.htm?_r=1&oref=slogin

Beating the system is seldom done by the poor and needy.

It depends on who the poor and needy are. It depends on what you consider rich as well. That depends on where you are in the spectrum. I'm in the 100K range, so to me rich is anything over 500K per year. Do the poor have credit accounts? Real poor and needy people do not. People who live above their means, do. They are not the poor and needy. Stop mixing apples and oranges.

For the 100th time, 85% of the people in the US can STILL file chapter 7. That's an undisputable fact. Those who abuse the system, will no longer be able to. Rich or the middle class. You can not honestly think that only the rich file for BK.(see stats below as well) If you do, you are really out of the loop. Actually, they are on the rise.

In addition, if you think the new law has had ANY bad effect, then you might want to view the current statistics;



The Chapter 7 filings for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 was the highest since the new bankruptcy laws went into effect in October of 2005.

News Flash! August 16, 2007 — The bankruptcy statistics were released on the Internet today by the Administrative Office of the Courts. Chapter 7 bankruptcies continue its steady rise since the new bankruptcy laws went into effect in October of 2005.

Chapter 7 quarterly filings have been as follows:

Quarter Ended: # of Chapter 7 filings
March 31, 2006 63,548
June 30, 2006 91,674
September 31, 2006 96,442
December 31, 2006 99,446
March 31, 2007 117,830
June 30, 2007 131,039

And who filed;

Average age: 38;
44% of filers are couples;
30% are women filing alone;
26% are men filing alone;
Slightly better educated than the general population;
Two out of three have lost a job;
Half have experienced a serious health problem;
Fewer than 9% have not suffered a job loss, medical event or divorce;
Highest bankruptcy rates: Tennessee, Utah, Georgia, Alabama.


And, here's a stupid part;

A family earning $24,000 had an average of $36,000 in credit card and similar debt.

Now, you tell me, why should I feel sorry for someone who made the decision to take out that much credit, knowing they had NO VIABLE way to pay it back. That's what I mean when I say people don't live within their means. If you don't make enough money to pay your bills, and buy things, how the hell can you EVER pay a credit card bill??

I believe Sirota was gone from there after he pointed out the negatives. The CAP sort of fell in line, I think. Don't want to cross the New Dems. Read all of this, very long.

There was no excuse for this bill.

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/032305/podesta.html

Podesta is grilled over e-mail
By Hans Nichols

"John Podesta, president of the progressive Center for American Progress
(CAP), faced pointed questions from lawmakers at last Thursday’s New
Democrat Coalition (NDC) meeting about an inflammatory e-mail his
organization sent to liberal activists and bloggers. In a March 9 e-mail, David Sirota, a fellow at CAP, accused 16 pro-business Democrats of supporting bankruptcy-reform legislation because they received political contributions from the commercial banks and credit-card companies that stand to benefit if the legislation becomes law.

The e-mail coursed through the blogosphere and generated angry phone calls Sirota, a former minority spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, criticized 16 of the 20 Democrats who wrote Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) March 7 urging him to bring bankruptcy reform to the House floor.

“And a look at campaign finance records shows why — the House Democrats who signed the letter pocketed a combined $750,000 in their two-year campaigns for Congress in 2004. To put that in perspective, that’s the equivalent of the industry giving these members $1,000 every single day of the last two years,” Sirota wrote, relying on figures from opensecrets.org.

The bill has yet to be voted on this year in the House.

Nearly every lawmaker who arrived at Thursday’s meeting with Podesta, former President Clinton’s last chief of staff, voiced concern about the Sirota broadside, calling it overtly personal and unhelpful to the two organizations’ shared goal of helping the Democratic Party grow.

“The NDC (New Dem Coalition) wanted to say, ‘We’re all under the same flag here, and let’s not forget that,’” he said, adding that he felt the meeting ended on a positive note."

It's so easy to pick one of the hundreds of bills they've voted for or against, and rake the candidate over the coals for it.

I disapproved of the BR bill big-time. And I'm not pleased that Biden voted for it. However, I have not yet heard why he did. As we all know, there are a myriad of possible reasons for a particular vote. They include: the bill I voted for was better than the alternate bill that would've been passed; the bill I voted for had certain amendments I thought needed to get passed that I felt would never get passed, except for being attached to this Republican bill; the bill I voted for I didn't think would really adversely affect many people, and yet had an upside; my vote was a mistake for which I am sorry and regret; or, as is implied in the original post of this thread, I thought this was a good bill through and through and should be passed...in fact, I wish I had been a co-sponsor.

Clinton...Biden...Dodd....Kucinich....all long-term senators who can, and will, be attacked for votes they made for or against one bill or another. Doesn't matter their reasons. The point is....their votes will be showcased in ads and made to look a certain way to aid the opposition, appealing to the hatemonger in us all.

Wanna win in '08? Pick a short-term senator or non-senator.

aren't reading the thread. I posted his reason above, straight from his pages on the US Senate website. Here it is again;
http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=234426&&

he or she made over 8 years or 10 years or 20 years. Doesn't matter WHY he or she voted that way. All that matters is that any particular vote can be made to APPEAR a certain way in soundbites, and broadcast to the vast public, who are for the most part unsavvy and uninformed about senatorial votes.

My point remains valid. The reasons Biden voted that way don't really matter.

Of course, I love Biden and recognize him as the most experienced, knowledgeable candidate about foreign affairs. I would never NOT vote for him because of ONE vote. That would be silly for anyone to base a vote for someone on ONE vote he or she made. But I don't support him because he has zero chance of winning either the nomination or the general election.

Whoever wins the nomination should select Biden as Sec of State, though. The BR bill, by the way, has nothing to do with such a post, so his voting for the BR bill shouldn't stop anyone from supporting that appointment.

that would have provided protections for poor people.

I know why.

One of his biggest campaign contributors are the credit card companies. MBNA has been top of the list for this guy for quite come time.


And it should it should blaock any appointment. It's called CORRUPTION. Money that influences a candidate to vote over the will of his consituency should bar that person from public office.

PERIOD!!!!!

Second - look at this -
Commercial Banks
Hillary Clinton (D)
$935,658

Barack Obama (D)
$865,856

Mitt Romney (R)
$600,091

Rudolph W. Giuliani (R)
$598,501

John McCain (R)
$583,700

Christopher J. Dodd (D)
$454,000

Bill Richardson (D)
$164,114

John Edwards (D)
$153,650

Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D)
$134,575

Fred Thompson (R)
$94,625

Ron Paul (R)
$28,541

Mike Huckabee (R)
$26,500

Sam Brownback (R)
$20,012

Duncan Hunter (R)
$6,900

Tom Tancredo (R)
$2,625

Dennis J. Kucinich (D)
$1,000

Alan Keyes (R)
$201


Biden's 135k v. Hillary's 1 million:rofl:

Kind of funny, isn't it....like Joe can be bought, LOL....

MBNA was one of the prime movers in lobbying for the passage of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which took 11 years and millions of dollars spent on lobbying before the act was finally passed when 15 Democrats (all of whom had received "campaign contributions" from MBNA, notably Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) $147,700) joined with their Republican colleages to sign it into law.

MBNA was one of the companies mentioned on a 2004 Frontline PBS special about unfair business practices by credit card companies<6>. Some industry practices which MBNA possibly engaged in previously included doubling or tripling of interest rates, shifting billing due dates/payment cycles monthly, and raising rates for customers whose payments were a day or two late. For further information and links, see Credit Cards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBNA

Gifford, Charles

http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Charles_Gifford.php

I must have missed something, because I checked out your link and it looked to me as though he has given about 4200.00.Am I wrong? My husband and I have given almost that much.

was....past tense.

Like I said, get some new material...this is old news...

They still exercise the same busines practices and their key donor is Charles Gifford who has already given Biden 4700 dollars in to Biden in this year alone.

You've already stated you have no problem with this.

Why fight it?

You agree with the Bankruptcy bill and all the people that get screwed as a result are regarded as yesterdays trash.

Seems to me you're just interested in putting up a facade. At least that's what I read into this now.

I'm not fighting IT, I'm fighting your garbage. You're the one with the facade. I, and others gave you all of the facts, which you continue to ignore. Seems your head is brick-like.

Let me repost these for you, in the event you missed what I said;

First of all, credit cards are totally voluntary. No one forces anyone to get a card. Secondly, your "rate" depends on a lot of factors. Your current income to debt ratio, your ability to pay, your credit history, the way you currently pay your credit cards, and how much you owe every other creditor, and how long you have owed them. If you're not happy with the "rates", then by all means, pay them off and close them, or, if qualified, transfer to a lower rate card company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

If someone racks up 100K in debt, why should they NOT have to pay part of it back? It all just rolls downhill otherwise, and we ALL pay for it. Same with people who just charge off their debts. We all pay for it. I'm just not willing to pay for a slacker that ran up a bunch of debt, and now wants the rest of us to pay his/her way. Look, you act like this affected you personally. My guess is, it hasn't. It's just one of maybe 4 things you can slam Biden on, and fail to notice that the bill was passed by 302 to 126. A Lot of people wanted to see this change, and frankly, it may help to stop the hemorage of people taking the easy way out after they rack up thousands in debt.

I say, good.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

He didn't choose credit card companies over people. What don't you people understand? Credit cards are OPTIONAL. They are NOT mandatory. If you don't like credit card terms, them STOP using them, and live within your means. It's just that simple.

This is nothing more than a lame excuse for people like you to find a reason to NOT support him. Fine. Don't. But stop with the woe-is-me stuff.....it's just not true. By the way, bankruptcies cost the average american $400.00 a year. Simply because of increased cost. I'm not OK with that. I'll say this one more time;

CREDIT CARDS ARE OPTIONAL. Use them or not. If you do use them, you are RESPONSIBLE for the debt.
End of story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

He aint usin that as his rationale.

I suppose working class Joe is going to offer that same rationale to the people who can't pay their bills because they have sick relatives to take care of. Not to mention those that get sick themselves.

I hope you're willing to go out on a limg like this with Biden the whole election. It'll play just as beautifully as kerry windsurfing and mondale in that tank.

Once again insane, or whatever his name is, gets a big hole shot straight through his unsubstantiated arguments.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00003572&cycle=2008

I don't see any banks on this list.

I do see 4700 for Biden from Gifford.

I really think there is something wrong with your cognitive process. Are you kidding? $4700?

I think your "spaceship" has landed....and I am tired of your ignorance.

Get some new material, will ya...

and Consumer Protection Act of 2005? No. Here, educate yourself. Many of the weak unsubstantiated points you keep bringing up were addressed in my earlier post and you conveniently failed to address anything on it.

But I don't support him because he has zero chance of winning either the nomination or the general election.

I want to scream every time I hear this. WE have to give him that chance!! He is just as electable as Hillary is, more so if you ask me. Yeah, let's not vote for the RIGHT person, let's vote for the one that we all THINK can win....bad mentality. Joe, more than ANY other candidate, will NOT be a polarizing president. He has support from the right as well. And mark my words, Edwards and Obama, will lose to a Republican. Hillary might too. People hate her, they see Edwards as phony, and Obama still has to overcome those who will not vote for a black man, or the ones who think he is not qualified. That is still out there, in large amounts. This has been the topic of many political shows lately.

Personally, I think Obama is not experienced enough. Another 10 years, maybe. Edwards, well, he's just a kiss a$$.

You don't love Biden!! You are just babbling, and out of both sides of your mouth too.