What exactly are the provisions of the bankruptcy bill that suck?

[Pepperbelly]

Everyone is posting wildly about the end of the Republic and such and I was very curious what it is about the bill that so enraged everyone. First, I do know that it imposed a means test before allowing a chapter 7, causing the cases of those who exceed the income level to chapter 13. What else does it do? Second, I also know that if there is any substantive reform, it should rein in the egregious, predatory practices by the banking industry.

But seriously, what did this do that I am missing?

[BlueEyedSon]

1. The exclusion for expensive homes and trusts are pretty egregious.

[DU_ONE]

2. What’s Wrong with H.R. 975, Let Us Count the Ways ...

The latest adaptation of the bankruptcy bill, H.R. 975

1. Subjects Debtors to a “Means Test” that Fails to Screen for Abuse and Instead Penalizes Honest Debtors by Imposing Additional Costs and Filing Burdens

2. Low-Income Debtors Have “Safe Harbor” from Means Test, But Are Subject to Increased Costs and Filing Requirements, Including Credit Counseling and Education

7. Undermines Debtors’ Ability to Save Homes and Cars in Chapter 13

Continue here:
http://www.consumerlaw.org/initiatives/bankruptcy/hr975.shtml

[AuntiBush]

5. Thank you!

For spelling it out with a resource at that!

In my words:

1. Millionaires & Big Corporations are protected more so.
2. Widows, Widows w/children, the Elderly, the Disabled, those that become sick, or loose their jobs (etc..) could lose their homes, or be forced to pay without a cap.

In other words, the creditors like VISA & MASTERCARD can go after college grads with unlimited amounts of late fees; widows on disability would be forced to lose their homes.

I could go on and on. Plainly put. The Rich just get a whole lot more richer today, and it's now open season for the rest of us. God forbid you should ever face a crisis, like an illness, or become disabled. And if you can't make a payment on your credit card for say 3 months, those credit corps can end up causing you to have a nervous breakdown, and you'll be paying till they bury you.

[DU_ONE]

3. H.R.975

TITLE I--NEEDS-BASED BANKRUPTCY

SEC. 101. CONVERSION.

SEC. 102. DISMISSAL OR CONVERSION.

`Sec. 707. Dismissal of a case or conversion to a case under chapter 11 or 13';

SEC. 103. SENSE OF CONGRESS AND STUDY.

SEC. 104. NOTICE OF ALTERNATIVES.

SEC. 105. DEBTOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT TRAINING TEST PROGRAM.

SEC. 106. CREDIT COUNSELING.

Continue here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.975:

[European Socialist]

4. Very profitable credit card companies....

being rewarded for predatory behavior.

[AuntiBush]

7. That's right, Michigander3!

And welcome :hi: When are we the people going to wake up?

[samplegirl]

10. Some would be better

off to take there chances at shoplifting. The fine would cost less.

[samplegirl]

6. another Saga......to George Bushs World

The elderly-----an amendment would have shielded
the elderly from losing eheir home, only up to 75,000
in value. Often it is medical problems and limited
income that leaves the elderly with no option
but bankruptcy.

The sick--an amendment would have protected people
from these new stardards if the bankruptcy was a direct
result of catastrophic illness.

Veterans--an amendment would have protected our soldiers
returning from Afganistan and Iraq who so often face
financial hardship upon their return.
and if this isnt enough---not even victims of ifentity
theft would be exempt from these new laws.

we now have a bill that says a family won't be protect-
ed if it has $50,000 but it will if it has $5 million.

[AuntiBush]

8. There you go. Well put, Samplegirl.

What a disgusting blow to "all" Americans.

Does anyone out here know of any Repub bloggers fed-up, too? We need to ban together. Something has to give here.

[samplegirl]

11. For some reason

Republicans always think there job is secure. This could work in
our favor. No ones job is that secure today. Pleanty of Repukes
are gonna feel this as well. Maybe even pull them down to the
treading "middle class"

[flpoljunkie]

9. Feingold lays it our pretty well...

http://feingold.senate.gov/issues_bankruptcy.html

Bankruptcy Reform

For many years, so-called bankruptcy “reform” legislation has been before the Senate. I have consistently opposed such legislation, not because I believe the bankruptcy system is perfect and should not be reformed, but because the reform bill that has been proposed is unfair to consumers who, because of serious illness, divorce, or job loss, are unable to pay their debts and need the protection of the bankruptcy system.

Amending the bankruptcy code used to be a nonpartisan exercise, where the Congress listened to experts - such as practitioners, law professors, judges and trustees - and made careful, considered judgments about how the law should work. Unfortunately, the legislative effort that has now gone on for six years has been much different. Big banks and credit card companies have been calling the shots and even though the bill is strongly opposed by the vast majority of bankruptcy law experts, it has come close to being enacted.

I will continue to oppose unfair bankruptcy reform legislation. I believe that we can prevent abuses of the system without enacting a bill that will harm the most vulnerable people in our society.

more...

http://feingold.senate.gov/statements/01/03/2002993412.html

[jojo54]

12. Now I"m curious

as to how many neocons have interests in these so called "credit counseling services" that were pushed so hard????? Gonna have to do some homework.

[BlueInRed]

13. There's a lot, but I think what's most telling is that bankruptcy judges

and bankruptcy lawyers tend to oppose the law. When the judges oppose the changes in law, you know something is very wrong.

One of the hardest things is that it will effectively double to quadruple the cost of filing for those who do manage to pass the means test.

It takes discretion away from the judge to decide when a situation is a true abuse and when full relief is appropriate. It requires the lawyer to swear to the truthfulness of the information provided by the debtor, which means the lawyers will have to now do very in depth research on potential filers just to make sure they don't get in trouble. (There is almost never this kind of requirement on suits. In general, lawyers are entitled to rely on what their clients tell them until facts come up showing differently.) This means legal fees will go WAY up as lawyers try to cover their backsides.

It can produce very inequitable results depending upon the state the person lives in. In some states, wealthy people will be able to keep a million dollar house, while in other states, an elderly person may lose their 1000 sq ft house and be only able to keep a teeny-tiny amount of assets. We've got some bankruptcy practitioners here who have posted long lists of the things wrong with it.

Mainly, it just wasn't necessary, as the law already provided for judges to deny the right to use Chapter 7 to anyone who was abusing the system. The real changes that were needed should have been aimed at loopholes for the wealthy, but the Rs defended those provisions to the death. So basically, the only people who will get hit really hard are the poor and middle class, while the wealthy can still use loopholes to shelter their assets.