Democrats & Liberals: Archives

That study sounded ominous until you look into the details. For example, the study classifies “uncontrolled gambling,” “drug addiction,” “alcohol addiction,” and the birth or adoption of a child as “a medical cause,” regardless of whether medical bills are involved. Gambling your money away can cause bankruptcy, but I don’t believe I want to the government to underwrite the trips to Vegas.

Besides, the study itself says that only 27 percent of the debtors had unreimbursed medical expenses exceeding $1,000 over the course of the two years prior to their bankruptcy. So it might be the case that sickness contributes to bankruptcy (not too hard to stipulate) but the health insurance solution wouldn’t change anything for at least 73% of those affected.

I agree with you about credit cards. I have had the same two credit cards for 25 years. Nobody needs more than that and I don’t like the solicitations that always come in the mail.

But the solution is to tighten credit. That means that some poor people don’t get credit at all. We let the credit card companies determine that they are bad risks and tolerate the screaming. There will then be whole neighborhoods were nobody can get credit. Imagine the outcry from what Bill Cosby so fittingly calls the poverty pimps.

Good money management is something that has to be learned.
Many of us are not taught to save but to use credit cards when we want something.
My husband and I are fortunate that we were raised with parents who saved to buy the extra things that they/we wanted. We have credit cards but hardly ever have to use them.
If money has to be taken from the grocery budget to buy a CD - don’t buy the CD.
I see things all the time that I might like to have but can most certainly live without.
I try not to pay full price for anything.

I don’t like to tell my children that we don’t have the ‘extra’ money for something they may want. (Sometimes I lie because what they wanted was not worth buying.)
It’s a fact of life. I could ‘charge it’ but why would I want to dig myself a hole when they didn’t really need the spur of the moment item they thought they couldn’t live without?
(Maybe some parents don’t like to look broke to their children.)

Something has to be done about those who abuse bankruptcy.
Making it harder for everyone probably won’t work the way they assume it will.
People who ‘game the system’ will just find new ways to do it.

Maybe the reason the banks and credit card companies want some reform in bankruptcy laws is that a lot of poeple who can pay their bills use banckruptcy to get out of the debts they create.
I own two busnisses, one is a small county store where I extend credit to local regular customers.
Last year I lost around $1200 to bankruptcy. The most of this loss was from people who were employeed and making more than enough to pay their bills.
I’m not saying I’m for changing the bankruptcy laws, I’m just trying to get to to look a the point of view of the creditors.
Maybe they should do what I’ve done, be more carfull about who they give credit to.

Rob Brown and others, you don’t know what filers of bankrupties situations are. You say you do, but, the bankruptcy court and the attorneys are the only ones outside the filer who knows their entire financial situation. Many are saddled with child support payments in addition to have new families. As was said, about 1/4 have accrued unpayable medical debt. Others mismanage their money through faulty choices. Many have lost their previous amount of income through lay offs and hiring in to lower paying jobs. There are a whole host of reasons folks end up in the bankruptcy situation, including a small percentage who do indeed scam the system.

However, if anyone follows Wall Street, they know that the banks and credit card companies who are in the game of elevating credit card debt from 5.9% introductory rates to as much as 29.9% on customers who have never made a late payment, are doing very well financially and the sector is at its peak for earnings.

So don’t believe those crocodile tears of the credit card company CEO’s making double figure millions in salary and bonuses. Bankruptcies could double their current rate and the credit card companies and banks would still turn a profit.

This legislation will have one primary effect. To enslave the poor to remain poor without a second chance. The wealthy however in this legislation remain largely untouched, capable of moving liquid assets into real assets protected under the new legislation. Why is that do you think? It is because folks like Enron’s CEO are not immune from adversity and possibly having to use the bankruptcy courts to salvage their wealth in times of adversity.

Punishing the poor for being poor, is about as stupid, unAmerican, and undemocratic a policy as I can think of save abridging 1st amendment rights. Yet, that seems to be the bent of so many of the Republican party policies and even some fat cat Democrats. A leader who cannot put themself in their constituent’s shoes, deserves not to be a leader. Given the nations debts, however, many of them may well experience their poor constituents viewpoint in their lifetime.

Bert:

Even with infrequent attention paid to Business headlines, most would know that bankruptcy filings are on a sharp rise in this country.

I know the left is desperate for bad economic news, but bankruptcy is on the decline thanks to the economic expansion.

http://www.creditman.biz/uk/members/news-view.asp?newsviewID=4488

I would encourage bloggers not to use bankruptcy statistics from 2001 and 2002 to form long term opinions on this subject because of the recession that started at the end of the Clinton administration. Now that the economy is growing again and more people are finding jobs, my expectation would be that the rate of bankruptcy would continue to decline moderately.

I see this as a non starter for 2006 political year. This issue is small compared to Social Security. I hope the left “misunderestimates” Bush again on this subject.

The economy is growing just fine, and should continue to do so through the 2006 elections. We should add at least another 2,000,000 jobs by then.

I think the best Republican tactic should be to continue to keep the left in retreat, by dominating the issues. Right now, the Democratic party seems to be in disaray. Dean is a dream come true for Repubicans. I think the biggest threat to the Republicans in 2006 isn’t the Democrats, but their own self confidence. I would be hard pressed to see what if any “focused” message the party has these days. They appear in full retreat.

Craig

Craig,

As you can see from this Google search results page, filings are being reported as on the rise in 2005 from individual states. But, I also have a question for you.

If filings were down in 2004, what is the need for this type of legislation?

Thanks David, for the added clarity.

Craig:

When China and Japan stop buying Dollars, we will see who laughs last…

Craig, and the Soc. Sec. issue is a small one compared to rising health care and Medicare/Medicaid. Face it, your Pres. simply has his priorities all in a jumble, probably reflecting the state of his mind.

Bert:

If filings were down in 2004, what is the need for this type of legislation?

To make sure people pay their bills. If the law passes and fewer people file bankruptcy, then interest rates should be lower for everyone. In the end, the credit card companies do not pay off the “bad loans”, they just increase rates on all consumers and take the money from the interest premium.

Aldous:

When China and Japan stop buying Dollars, we will see who laughs last…

Bad economics. If that happened, we would stop buying their products. Now who would get hurt if your idea happened? Germany with it’s 12% unemployment can’t buy these goods. China and Japan would colapse. And why are you rooting against America getting ready to “laugh last” if bad times come?? Why are you tied politically in such a way as to hope for bad news??

David:

Craig, and the Soc. Sec. issue is a small one compared to rising health care and Medicare/Medicaid. Face it, your Pres. simply has his priorities all in a jumble, probably reflecting the state of his mind.

My career is helping plan people’s retirement, and I have clients that have been with me for over 15 years. I can tell you that much of the fear is what I call the error of extrapolation. People extrapolate todays values on these projections. The planned retirment age of my clients has been rising over the years. Clients who were going to retire at 55 for instance now at 50 are thinking of retiring @ 62. Some are planning on working until 70. Basically, humans keep reevaluating data and adjust as they get older.

I think there is good news and bad news in the medical field. The bad news is my generation will have to work longer than we thought. The good news is that my generation will live longer than our parents because of medical advances.

The “market” is saying that most Americans are willing pay for a longer life. We are in the process of bidding up that area of the economy until we are satisfied with our longevity.

I think the old paradigms about retirement age and work are probably obselete and need to be reevaluated. I will probaby work until I am 70 just because I want to!!!

Craig

Craig,

I do not have a problem with sensible bankruptcy reform to curb abuses, but I do believe it should be addressed equally across the board.

What angered and triggered me to write this post, was the rejection of such sensible measures seeking to end abuses by corporations, wealthy individuals and the credit card companies, themselves. They are contained in defeated Senate Democrat amendments to the bankruptcy bill detailed in the New York Times’ article linked in my article:

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, proposed the amendment to limit the use of so-called asset protection trusts. His amendment would have limited the use of the trusts to shield assets only up to $125,000.

“They said, ‘you’re right, but we’re voting against all amendments,’ ” Mr. Schumer said. “So now we have a bill that says a family won’t be protected if it has $50,000, but it will if it has $5 million.”

After the vote on the Schumer amendment, the Senate by a vote of 54 to 40 rejected a proposal by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, to protect employees of companies that go into Chapter 11 by permitting them to get up to $15,000 in back pay or other compensation. It then rejected an amendment by Senator Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, to curtail what he called the abusive practices of executives at companies like Enron and WorldCom who received millions of dollars in compensation shortly before the companies filed for bankruptcy protection.

The chamber also defeated an amendment proposed by Senator Mark Dayton, Democrat of Minnesota, that would have imposed a 30 percent annual limit on credit card interest rate charges. And it rejected an amendment by Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, to exempt debtors from the means test if their problems were caused by identity theft.

I challenge anyone who supports this bankruptcy legislation, to explain to me how this is fair and equal.

Bert:

First of all, I don’t accept the NY Times as a credible news sourse. Too many times they have come across as a left wing propaganda machine.

Second, before rushing to judgment, I would like an answer too why the Republicans are voting down “all amendments”. There could be a reason for this such as, “We understand this bill like all others is not perfect, and we want to get it to conference where we will work out the details. We are under a time crunch and it needs to be done this way.” In other words, until I see why the Republicans are not accepting any amendments, I don’t think it is appropriate to draw any conclusions about the final product.

Craig

Bert:

I did a bit of research on this bill and the process that the Republicans are using. Evidently bill like this have failed in the past, so they (Republican leadership) are moving the bill through quickly before “complications” come about. Speed seems to be important to them.

Craig

Craig,

First of all, there’s a reason the New York Times is called ‘the newspaper of record’. Regardless of what appears in opinion columns or on the Editorial page, this reputation means that at the very least, what they detail as the specifics to certain amendments introduced in the U.S. Senate are throughly confirmed as accurate.

But, to be certain that the descriptions I took from the article are accurate, you can compare them to the Official Bill Summary and Status of the 109th Congress and the list of amendments introduced to the Bankruptcy legislation, Senate Bill S.256!

‘…and we want to get it to conference where we will work out the details. We are under a time crunch and it needs to be done this way.” In other words, until I see why the Republicans are not accepting any amendments, I don’t think it is appropriate to draw any conclusions about the final product.

conference committee - A temporary, ad hoc panel composed of House and Senate conferees which is formed for the purpose of reconciling differences in legislation that has passed both chambers. Conference committees are usually convened to resolve bicameral differences on major and controversial legislation.

Which means Craig, these sensible and fair amendments will not be considered in conference, because they will not be attached to the Senate version of the bill.

Bert:

Right now I put Dan Rather and the NY Times in the same group.

As for this issue, I would disagree with the Republican approach on this bill. Haste makes ,,,,, . I think the focus should be on quality legislation. If I am reading the process correct, it is not that the Republicans are for or against any of these amendments, it is rather that they are voting against ALL amendments in order to avoid the complications that have killed this legislation in the past.

Do you know what the House version of this bill looks like?

Craig

Craig,

If you want to know what the House version of the bill looks like, do your own research. But, I warn you, if you bring back an account from the Washington Times or the Wall Street Journal, you’ve given me the right to distort or ignore whatever evidence that does not support my position.

Bert, Craig, I’m afraid you’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. As for retirement age changing because americans are “living longer” I would like to mention this is a misnomer. Americans are being killed less often at a lower age than in the past partially because of “medical advances” but mostly becuase we live in a safer world and are less likely to be kicked by a horse or sucked into farm machinery than we used to be. If you campare life expectancies of those at 50yrs old today with those of a century ago they’re very close. George Washington was in his late seventies when acting as our first pres. The reason I mention this is because it allows us to make decisions on health care and social security insurance with a clearer vision of the facts that matter. I would also like to mention that my partner is a nurse and believes that the stat of 27% of bankruptcies are medical bill related is an extremely conservative number, this is not her opinion, but what she’s heard from working with other med. and insurance professionals. Even so, reducing bankruptcies by a quarter is almost reason enough to throw out or current med. plan and start from scratch. I think the social security and bankruptcy issues have largely been manufactered to take our eyes off the real issues, namely Medicare and Iraq. Thank you.
-Feral

Bert:

Not a problem on looking up my own facts. I thought you might have the info ready at hand. In terms of evidence, I will try to quote from a range of opinion.

As for the current bill, I think bankruptcy does need to be looked at. In general I think it is too easy to walk away from once commitments whether they be financial or personal. I would be for making it harder to break legal commitments.

I would not be for doing so in an unjust fashion. And not for doing so in haste. I do ageee with you that the process with the bankruptcy legislation is causing issues.

Craig

Feral:

If you campare life expectancies of those at 50yrs old today with those of a century ago they’re very close.

Do you have documentation for this? It is very hard for me to imagine that the medical profession has had no impact on longevity for those over 50 in the last 200 years. If that is the case we can cancel medicare all together!! We can go back to bloodletting!!

Craig

Craig,
I’m sorry I am unable to remember the exact program, but my information came from National Public Radio. I realize you probably won’t consider them a credible news source since they aren’t accountable to gigantic corporations, but I have always found them to be “fair and balanced”. If you need more evidence you need not look far to find many examples of people of advanced age in our countries history, nearly all of our founding fathers were quite old as well as wise. I realize this doesn’t give us any hard numbers to deal with, it just meant to be an example of it being somewhat self evident. I think it is somewhat obvious in this age of lawyers that we have eliminated many once common risks. We have simply traded catastrophic injury/death from war or work and occasional plagues with more sloth/polution related diseases such as heart problems, cancer, obesity, etc. all of which are quite a drag on medical resources and likely to get worse.
Sorry again for not having specific sources for my postulating. I just hope my statements raise enough curiosity for others to do some of there own searching. I guess thats what blogs are for. Thank you.
-Feral

Feral:

That is ok. There have always been “old” in generations. As the Bible says “if by reason of strength 80 years”. What is new is the fast quantities. Everytime there is a bipass surgery, or someone past 50 survives cancer because of new drugs or treatment the longivity of persons over 50 goes up.

You are correct when you say that modernization of industry has brought us saftey and a cleaner environment here in our country verses third world countries. However our system of free enterprise has also brought us a longer life for most groups.

As Bill Clinton said in 1998, Social Security is in trouble on a long term basis and needs to be fixed.

Craig

Craig,
I do agree with you in that social security insurance needs to be fixed. That being said, turning it from an INSURANCE program into a investment program is not a fix any more than turning my broken down truck into an icecream maker is a fixed truck. Apples are not oranges. It is particularly not a “fix” when the offered/forced alternative will require the U.S. to borrow 2 trillion dollars (thats 9 zeros) just to get it started and bring administrative costs from the current level of .5% (thats got to be a govt. low)up to the 40% it is costing other countries to run their own privatization programs (all of which have proven to be huge failures, Great Britain for example). Not too mention those that have done the math find that privatization will actually speed up its bankruptcy. Maybe thats why Bush hasn’t given us an actual plan yet, its far to easy to discount. Which brings me back to my opinion of this being a distraction away from Iraq and Medicare (which will be bankrupt 3 to 4 decades before social security insurance, but don’t tell anybody its a secret). Can there be any other reason for Bush to be prancing around the country pushing it like a used car salesman, with no actual plan, than to provide a smoke screen with the great side effect of helping out wallstreet to boot? I’ll let you guess my answer.
-Feral
p.s. info. provided by NPR, opinion is original.

feralbrogan:

It is particularly not a “fix” when the offered/forced alternative will require the U.S. to borrow 2 trillion dollars.

I actually do this time of work for a living. I a help people plan for their retirement. When a client/prospect comes to me with a retirement goal and they are short of that goal, it is very hard to fix the problem with ONE solution. Let me give you a made up example.

Lets say you want to retire in 15 years, and now are saving $333.00, and earning 6% on your investments. I do a plan, and it is common for the plan to say that you wont make it. If I give you one solution, it may be to double your investment per month, or it may be to increase your risk out of your comfort zone to say 10% return, or to delay retirement for 5 years or so. (All of these numbers are made up).

However if I propose three solutions it would look something like this: Invest $400/month, increase savings to 8%, and delay retirement for two years or 17 years from now. Guess which solution clients choose? The usually choose the multiple solution choice.

Here is how that would work with SS. I am age 49. Delay my retirement by one year, increase my taxes on the next $5,000 of income, and give me the option of a private account for SOME of my earnings. (Thisincreases the rate of return on investment). The synergy of three modest solutions is greater than one large solution, and far less stressful to the “system”.

So based on 18 years in the investment business, and interviews with countless clients facing retirement shortfalls, that is my opinion!!

Craig

As I said before Craig, I agree SSI needs to be fixed, and that mey very well involve using several options. However the options offered do not do a better job at a cost that makes them more efficient. To use your analogy of a person planning for retirement, you would not recommend your client to start investing an extra $400 a month if they had a monthly fee of $180 taken from it when in the past they had been saving $300 a month with a fee of $1.50 a month. This is in effect what the current adminastraion is proposing.
This is not conjecture on my part. It is happening right now in several countries (please look at Britains plan), those countries have all acknowledged it was a bonehead decision, but once they dive in they are unable to get out of it since it is such a long term plan.
One thing it did do is boost money flow into the various investment markets because it turned much of the work force into investors. The extra cost of running a investment type plan is much higher than a insurance type plan, and, since we are proposing to do both at the same time the added inefficiency drags down the insurance half, leaving us with an on average lower effeciency. This negatively affects those who opted to not use a private account and stay with the current program in addition to those who were fooled.
One might argue that the benefits to the economy might be worth the loss in effeciency because of the “trickle down” effect of putting all that money into the market. But as has been proven by the last three republican administrations (all of which ended up with a deficit) TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS DON’T WORK! Thats why they are rich, they don’t let anything trickle down, and besides thats not the job of social security insurance.
Again we see a plan that helps investment bankers and corporations by taking money from MY future retirement funds, all the while distracting all of us from our much worse off medicare plan and the war in Iraq. I can’t say it much planer than that.
I hope this helps you to see my point of view, I am thankful for yours.
-Feral

Feralbrogan:

So what you are saying then is if the plan can be administered for about the same cost as the current plan, you have no objection, right??

Craig

Feralbrogan:
Is information like this what you are refering to??

http://new.heritage.org/Press/DailyBriefing/policyweblog.cfm

This has to do with percentage of revenue companies get from different sourses, not the amount it would take to run a program. Programs the size of private accounts should be easily done with .5% or less.

Craig