Letters to the Editor
-
The ultimate bail out
Don't blink, before you know it the Congress will be bailing out the Credit Card companies, and their past dues clients. To be sure their rates constitute usury, and these companies have a number of other egregious practises, red-lining probably. On the other hand, if you use your Credit Card wisely, the service doesn't cost you anything, although it was once said that (all) consumers underwrite the use of credit cards, and retailers who did not take CC's could sell the same product cheaper, it's hard to make that case anymore. The same experts used to advertise cable as television without advertising.
People with large credit card bills were abusing the system in bankruptcy court, and these companies were hard pressed to do anything about it... The question of consumer credit is a nagging one. We could probably benefit from a bill which would prevent healthcare providers from putting their services on your Visa card. That might force them to deal with the issue.
-
Student Loans, too
Even with bankruptcy reform, I doubt student loans will ever be allowed to be charged off. I spent $50K getting ridiculously expensive degrees that appear to be useless in this job market. I'm 50, and I'll never be able to pay these things off, given my earnings. I fully expect them to deduct payments from my meager social security check when I'm old. Should be fun eating cat food sandwiches along with my Geritol.
-
Reap what you sow
The corporate right is against any type of bailout or regulation when it helps consumers, but are for any bailout or regulation that that lines up with their interests.
People often confuse regulation and government aid as helpful to consumers and harmful to corporate interests. This is not a case. Regulation and bailouts are merely tools. They hurt consumers as much as they help them. Companies to reap what they sow as do many consumers.
I work in the energy industry, and there's constant cry to reregulate by people who've forgotten part of the reason deregulation occurred was to prevent utilities from getting fat by building oak paneled cafeterias and the like.
-
You never have to bail out the credit card companies
They simply pass their losses on to the people who DO pay.
-
Paul Wellstone
It seems to me in an article that I read in Time magazine that Paul Wellstone argued against the early version of the bankruptcy act. I remember the article discussed the reasons why people declared bankruptcy--and it wasn't because people were taking too many vacations in the Bahamas, or other such nonsense. I believe the article talked about the high cost of medical bills and that was before it was even talked about by most politicians. Nothing has changed, except we don't have a Paul Wellstone to go against the status quo of the wealthy.
-
Blog BS
Sorry Andrew, the statement you cited from the pro-Hillary blog is factually WRONG.
Bill Clinton had his bypass surgergy on Sept. 6, 2004
The Bankruptcy Bill was voted on in the Senate in the First week of March, 2005. Hillary was not present, and she has NO excuse for not being present, other than the possibility she did not want to be seen as voting for it because she knew it would come back to haunt her, and rightfully so. Guess her ambition trumped her "principles" once again.
I normally enjoy your pointed comments. However, this illustrates the danger in taking comments from blogs at face value. Please do basic fact checking before you cite statements from a blog.
-
debt and the economy
Every day I drive to work and listen to the local NPR affiliate. They do the economic report at the same time every day and at least once a week we hear "consumer spending is low, this is bad for the economy", the message I hear is that the consumer should buy things to keep putting money into the economy. Soon after we hear "consumer debt is at an all time high! consumer savings are at an all time low!" and it seems that we spent too much.
So, which is it? Should I spend to keep the economy strong? Or should I save for a rainy day and not spend?
Or should I just ignore all y'all and have a gumball?
-
What's to debate?
The new law adds the requirement that everyone get counseling – whether it can help or not - before filing at a cost of about $60 per person and several hours of work. You have to go to special counselors approved by the US trustee’s office. It raised the court fee by about $124 (from $175 to $299). It added a post filing debtor education class – needed or not - at maybe $60 each and several hours of work. It added a requirement to provide about one hundred personal documents to be sent to the trustee. It provides for dismissal for any mistake in the paperwork. It increased the number of pages to be filled out and included in the initial filing: a typical personal Bankruptcy is now over 50 pages long with 8 separate documents to be signed. It decreased the relief available in reorganizations, put restrictions on attorney's advice to debtors, added requirements on attorney advertising raising the fees attorney’s charge by maybe 50%. Based upon the current law, the US Trustees are saying that people on Social Security or disability are no longer entitled to relief. They are threatening some attorneys with fines for filing such cases on behalf of these debtors.
(It added the right to have your court fees waived if you can’t pay. But you must file a motion to the court and appear at repeated hearings, and (catch 22) you can’t pay an attorney to help you. The process is so complicated that most attorneys would charge more than the fee to do a similar amount of work: so what good is it?)
Many people believe that bankruptcy should be available only to corporations and therefore don’t have concerns with high costs and impossible requirements on individuals. They don’t care if people on social security have their bank accounts garnished and receive creditor’s calls all day and night with various threats. But for Democrats, there is no debate.