# The Bankruptcy lines. The Revenge of the Capitalists? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 15, 2005, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343 "2005-10-15T09:04:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2005, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343/41 "2005-10-16T20:05:13Z")
I, too, think the counseling aspect is kind of strange, but I don’t see any reason it would be unconstitutional. The constitution gives Congress the authority to make the bankruptcy laws uniform. It says nothing about what the content of the laws must be (other than that they be uniform throughout the US). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2005, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343/42 "2005-10-16T22:11:37Z")
Well, I’d look at this whole “credit counseling” thing with more skepticism if credit counseling operations were, as a general rule, owned and/or operated by the larger financial istitutions. That would strike me as, well, incestuous. The cousin-fucking of the ruling class. But since most credit counseling outlets are little Mom 'n Pop outlets, small businesses like Hank’s Credit Counseling, Bait and Ammo, its just further proof of how the Republicans are keenly concerned with the “little guy”. The CEO of Citigroup, for instance, is about 5 foot 4… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2005, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343/43 "2005-10-16T23:02:44Z")
Perhaps the bunkruptee can open a credit counseling outlet once he/she is in the clear. It’s part of the ownership society. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343/44 "2005-10-17T01:53:07Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > Don’t be obtuse. Bankruptcy exists as a buffer against the harsher effects of unbridled capitalism. The new legislation weakens that buffer. Don’t be obtuse yourself. What I said I said in the context of the OP spouting off about Ayn Rand and Capitalisim…in the context of Federal legislation of all things. As you are well aware of, this is a FEDERAL law, legislated by the GOVERNMENT. In that context it has jack shit to do with Ayn Rand OR Capitalism…right? Let me summarize the bullshit in case you forgot: > [@Wake up call](#): > > Oh, I am sure you rationalize that “Hey, it is a free market. I jack up the price. As long as there are buyers, it is a fair game”. But can you sleep well, knowing (or not knowing) that the price of your “wellness, and clear conscience” is being paid, albeit indirectly, by those who need to line up to declare bankruptcy? What this rant has to do with anything at all is unclear to me. As an answer to the unanswerable: I sleep fine. I sleep even better when I’m able to grind the peasants and workers into the dirt before laying down. To summarize the summary: We are talking about a law that dicks with the free market by modifying an earlier law dicking with the free market from the Federal level, something Rand would be opposed too in the first place (i.e. why drag her into this discussion at all?), and something that actually has nothing to do with pure Capitalism (i.e. again, why drag this in?) but instead has to do with the government. The OP and his/her rant seems completely disconnected (to me) from the cite…i.e. the OP is just looking to bash on Capitalism and what he perceives as Randians on this board (something I haven’t seen of ANY of the more libertarian types on this board) and just latched onto the cite and decided that though its the Federal Government doing this that somehow its the fault of Capitalism and The Market (and even more incomprehensibly, Ayn Rand and/or her philosophy). Thus the explosion of my irony meter. Now, if you wish to debate the actual law, and what mistakes the government is making by screwing with the existing law thats another matter entirely. -XT p.s. Who IS John Galt? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343/45 "2005-10-17T09:36:10Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > But the new statute’s manditory credit counseling requirement still stinks to high heaven. If it isn’t an impairment of contract, and I’ll concede that that is probably so, then it sounds in involuntary servitude and/or an impairment of the constitutional right to file bankruptcy. (Bankruptcy courts are mandated right on the face of the Constitution.) Where in the Constitution are bankruptcy courts mandated? [Article III](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/) only provides for the establishment of the Supreme Court. It leaves it up to Congress to decide whether to create any other federal courts: > [@](#): > > Section 1. > > The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in **such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.** The parallel provision in [Article I](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/) reads: > [@](#): > > Section 8. > > The Congress shall have Power … > > To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; Nothing there that says Congress must establish federal bankruptcy courts, or any other federal courts, for that matter. The extent to which there would be a federal judiciary was one of the points in debate at the Constitutional Convention, and the decision was to leave that to the discretion of Congress to decide. As well, the federal bankruptcy power is expressed as a power of Congress to pass a law, not a right of an individual to file for bankruptcy in a federal court: > [@](#): > > Section 8. > > The Congress shall have Power … > > To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; My understanding is that this grant of power is discretionary, like all the other grants of federal power: Congress can legislate in this area, but is not required to do so. If it does choose to do so, it can set the terms and conditions for filing for bankruptcy, provided the federal law on bankruptcy is uniform throughout the United States. As for the involuntary servitude argument, the Thirteenth Amendment has been given a pretty specific interpretation: it’s aimed at slavery. Requiring someone to agree to counseling as a condition of invoking the rights under the bankruptcy statute strikes me as a pretty far cry from slavery. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343/46 "2005-10-17T13:57:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Uh huh. > > Well, so far as I’m aware, the meaning of “impair” in this clause was defined by _Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell_: > Is there any case law that has the remotest support for the idea that “The freedom to enter into a contract includes the freedom NOT to enter into a contract” is implicated by Article 1, Section 10? That section refers to the inability of the state to _invalidate_ contracts… it has nothing to do with the proposition **zamboniracer** offered. Why are you “uh-huhing” me? You said you “missed that part of the Constitution”, and asked to have your recollection refreshed. If you were aware of the clause and its meaning of impair, why didn’t you just tell Zamboniracer what you’re telling me? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343/47 "2005-10-17T14:07:33Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Why are you “uh-huhing” me? You said you “missed that part of the Constitution”, and asked to have your recollection refreshed. If you were aware of the clause and its meaning of impair, why didn’t you just tell Zamboniracer what you’re telling me? Because it appeared to me that **zamboniracer** must be referring to something else entirely. He said: > [@zamboniracer](#): > > … it sure seems to me that the bankruptcy act’s “Full employment for credit counseler provisions” violate the Constitutional requirement forbidding impairment of contracts. The freedom to enter into a contract includes the freedom NOT to enter into a contract. Under the new act if a debtor wants to file bankruptcy he has to first enter into an agreement with a “credit counseler”, which doesn’t strike me as Constitutional. So he’s not just referring to a section of the Constitution that mentions contracts - he is referring to some requirement that defines a “freedom to contract” and a “freedom NOT to contract”. It was these additions that caused me to question which part of the Constitution he was reading. You helpfully quoted the section that refers to impairment of contracts, but it does not, either by plain language or existing case law, mean what **zamboniracer** suggested, so you got an “Uh huh” and an explanation. I certainly didn’t intend for the “Uh huh” to offend, and if it did, I certainly apologize. > [@zamboniracer](#): > > Bricker, I bow to your superior legal analysis vis a vis the new bankruptcy statute’s impairment of contract. As I said above, I ain’t no expert. > > But the new statute’s manditory credit counseling requirement still stinks to high heaven. If it isn’t an impairment of contract, and I’ll concede that that is probably so, then it sounds in involuntary servitude and/or an impairment of the constitutional right to file bankruptcy. (Bankruptcy courts are mandated right on the face of the Constitution.) Constitututional rights can be limited by the police power, certainly, (as for example the right to petition for redress of grievences is limited by requiring protestors to get permits and stay in fenced off enclosures well away from the President when he’s out of his bunker) but favoring credit counselers over debtors sure isn’t an appropriate exercise of the police power, IMHO, YMMV. Here again I must disagree. Art. I, Sec. 8 gives Congress the power to establish uniform bankruptcy laws if they choose. It does not create an unfettered right of the individual to file bankruptcy without any regulation at all. I certainly agree you may argue that this exercise of Congress’ power is unwise. It is most certainly not unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343/48 "2005-10-17T14:22:31Z")
> [@bdgr](#): > > I used to work in an insurance company. I used to listen to management laugh about new ways they had found to screw people out their benifits and I’ve dealt with companies on the other end where you pratically had to hire a lawyer to get them to pay the claim they owed you. You shouldnt have your credit ruined, go through an appeals process, and hire a lawyer to get what you pay for from these jerks. I’ve been there. I had it in writing that my back surgery was approved before I had it and then spent months fielding letters and phone calls from collections because the insurance company refused to pay (Yes, I did complain to the state). Insurance companys need to be stepped on more, not less. I’ll stipulate that your anecdotes are true. I’ll even stipulate that you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. That said, what do you believe is a reasonable percentage of denials? What percentage of denials is fraud purpetrated on the insurance company? What percentage is due to vital information missing from a claim form? What percentage involves incidents and personnel not covered by the plan? What percentage is due to your unawareness of the plan’s terms? If you’re one of those unfortunate people who get the shit end of every stick they touch — as appears to be the case with you and insurance — then nothing will help you short of a change in fortune. But statistically, you’re an aberration. ---
**Author:** ![Dishfunctional](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/35a633/32.png) [@Dishfunctional](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dishfunctional)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343/49 "2005-10-17T14:24:09Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > That fact that so many people are declaring bankruptcy is troubling. Not having read the entire thread, I don’t know if this point has already been made, but… If you think it’s bad _now_, just wait until rising interest rates cause the billions of dollars borrowed today in adjustable-rate mortgages to become tens of billions of dollars owed tomorrow! ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343/50 "2005-10-17T14:25:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because it appeared to me that **zamboniracer** must be referring to something else entirely. > > He said: > > So he’s not just referring to a section of the Constitution that mentions contracts - he is referring to some requirement that defines a “freedom to contract” and a “freedom NOT to contract”. It was these additions that caused me to question which part of the Constitution he was reading. > > You helpfully quoted the section that refers to impairment of contracts, but it does not, either by plain language or existing case law, mean what **zamboniracer** suggested, so you got an “Uh huh” and an explanation. > > I certainly didn’t intend for the “Uh huh” to offend, and if it did, I certainly apologize. No problem. I get intellectual whiplash trying to wrap my brain around the notion of freedoms and rights coming from dead men’s scribbles. For me, it wasn’t a matter of a freedom coming from somewhere, but of a freedom denied by something. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343/51 "2005-10-17T14:30:06Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > No problem. I get intellectual whiplash trying to wrap my brain around the notion of freedoms and rights coming from dead men’s scribbles. For me, it wasn’t a matter of a freedom coming from somewhere, but of a freedom denied by something. Well, perhaps this doversion belongs in the “Where rights come from” thread, but while I see your point as to rights in general, I hope you see mine, in turn, that these are not of CONSTITUTIONAL origin. In other words, accepting your observation that “dead men’s scribbles” are not the source of rights, it seems we both agree that regardless of whether the right exists or not, it’s not constitutional in nature. ---
**Author:** ![Dishfunctional](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/35a633/32.png) [@Dishfunctional](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dishfunctional)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343/52 "2005-10-17T14:32:34Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > There was one “group” or “type” lumped in with the rest who are filing - those with medical expenses. It is wildly inaccurate to simply say they “do not understand money” or they are just irresponsible. These are people who are in this fix because they had no choice. It’s entirely possible that I misunderstand one of the main reasons for drafting bankruptcy laws in the first place, but aren’t these “groups” or “types” you’ve identified the very people these laws are intended to protect? And aren’t they indeed protected? I can understand a certain amount of sympathy for their bad roll of the dice - there but for the grace of God go I, and all that - but what’s the alternative - No Loss in Life’s Lottery Insurance? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343/53 "2005-10-17T14:34:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, perhaps this doversion belongs in the “Where rights come from” thread, but while I see your point as to rights in general, I hope you see mine, in turn, that these are not of CONSTITUTIONAL origin. In other words, accepting your observation that “dead men’s scribbles” are not the source of rights, it seems we both agree that regardless of whether the right exists or not, it’s not constitutional in nature. I do see yours (despite disagreeing with it). I was just explaining that, had I taken into account your most likely view, I might better have understood why you said what you said. I find myself to be the victim of the same thing quite often, only my views are so unique (to this particular board) that I’m seldom given the benefit of the doubt, and am thought to be obtuse or belligerent, when in fact I merely have a different worldview. In other words, nevermind. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343/54 "2005-10-17T14:35:22Z")
> [@Northern Piper](#): > > Where in the Constitution are bankruptcy courts mandated? > > [Article III](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/) only provides for the establishment of the Supreme Court. It leaves it up to Congress to decide whether to create any other federal courts: > The parallel provision in [Article I](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/) reads:Nothing there that says Congress must establish federal bankruptcy courts, or any other federal courts, for that matter. The extent to which there would be a federal judiciary was one of the points in debate at the Constitutional Convention, and the decision was to leave that to the discretion of Congress to decide. > > As well, the federal bankruptcy power is expressed as a power of Congress to pass a law, not a right of an individual to file for bankruptcy in a federal court:My understanding is that this grant of power is discretionary, like all the other grants of federal power: Congress can legislate in this area, but is not required to do so. If it does choose to do so, it can set the terms and conditions for filing for bankruptcy, provided the federal law on bankruptcy is uniform throughout the United States. > > As for the involuntary servitude argument, the Thirteenth Amendment has been given a pretty specific interpretation: it’s aimed at slavery. Requiring someone to agree to counseling as a condition of invoking the rights under the bankruptcy statute strikes me as a pretty far cry from slavery. A Google search of the phrase “bankruptcy is a constitutional right” leads to numerous websites, mostly of attorneys who practice in the field of bankruptcy, and who assert in their advertising that “bankruptcy is a constitutional right”. If use of the phrase bothers you feel free to file claims against them for false or misleading advertising. As for my involuntary servitude argument allow me to introduce you to the term “hyperbole.” ---
**Author:** ![Dishfunctional](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/35a633/32.png) [@Dishfunctional](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dishfunctional)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343/55 "2005-10-17T14:43:15Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > I have a new neighbor who apparently lost her last house to foreclosure, yet drives a $40,000 Lexus SUV. The papers and TV are full of real-life, everyday anecdotal stories of property loss due to natural catastrophe, but for every “poor me” story, there’s a “not-so-poor me” story like Loopydude’s neighbor. What bugs me most are those Lexus drivers (who refuse to downsize) and the owners of Maibu beachfront who, just because they can afford the premium, have their insurance companies re-build their multi-million dollar homes every few years. Oh, and the contents (purchased from the glittering shops along Rodeo Drive) are replaced, as well. My point, if it’s required to have one, is that their premiums, although high, don’t even come _close_ to covering these costs… the rest of us responsibly-insured types pick up that tab. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343/56 "2005-10-17T14:45:10Z")
> [@Dishfunctional](#): > > What bugs me most are those Lexus drivers (who refuse to downsize) and the owners of Maibu beachfront who, just because they can afford the premium, have their insurance companies re-build their multi-million dollar homes every few years. Oh, and the contents (purchased from the glittering shops along Rodeo Drive) are replaced, as well. They must own nothing of consequence, like family photos and baby’s first shoes. ---
**Author:** ![Dishfunctional](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/35a633/32.png) [@Dishfunctional](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dishfunctional)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343/57 "2005-10-17T14:57:38Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > Under the new act if a debtor wants to file bankruptcy he has to first enter into an agreement with a “credit counseler”, which doesn’t strike me as Constitutional. I’m _not_ a lawyer, Zamboniracer, but what if this is a condition of the original loan application? ---
**Author:** ![Dishfunctional](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/35a633/32.png) [@Dishfunctional](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dishfunctional)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343/58 "2005-10-17T15:07:02Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > An increasing gulf between the rich and the poor only leads to severe societal instability. Some might argue that an increasing gulf between the rich and the poor adds individual incentive to close that gap… usually by increasing one’s own wealth as opposed to decreasing that of others. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343/59 "2005-10-17T15:14:55Z")
> [@Dishfunctional](#): > > The papers and TV are full of real-life, everyday anecdotal stories of property loss due to natural catastrophe, but for every “poor me” story, there’s a “not-so-poor me” story like Loopydude’s neighbor. What bugs me most are those Lexus drivers (who refuse to downsize) and the owners of Maibu beachfront who, just because they can afford the premium, have their insurance companies re-build their multi-million dollar homes every few years. Oh, and the contents (purchased from the glittering shops along Rodeo Drive) are replaced, as well. > > My point, if it’s required to have one, is that their premiums, although high, don’t even come _close_ to covering these costs… the rest of us responsibly-insured types pick up that tab. You’ll recall that Loopydude never said his neighbor filed for bankruptcy protection. He said her house was foreclosed and that now she has a $40,000 car. Quite frankly, I don’t see his point. She is killing her credit, but what does that have to do with bankruptcy law. I may be one of the only people here who actually practices bankruptcy law. I have been a lawyer for six years, I’m relatively young (straight through college and law school right into first job), so I’m low on the life-stories reagarding big spending neighbors, but I did consumer work representing debtors in both 7’s and 13’s for two years at the beginning of my career. I have also represented secured and unsecured creditors in consumer 7’s and 13’s. I now represent individual and corporate debtors in 7’s and 11’s (no more 13), Chapter 7 Trustees, and secured and unsecured creditors in 11’s. I have been involved in the smallest 7’s (less than $10,000 debt) to the biggest 11’s (how’s Worldcom, USAirways, the list goes on). My point, what I lack in spendthirift neighbor stories I make up for in practical experience. Yes, bankruptcy law was being abused, but guess what, in Ch. 13, not 7. There has always been a provision to prevent abuse in 7’s, 11 U.S.C. sec 707(b), this new “means test,” practically replaces the discretion given the courts under the former law, and it’s unrealistic in a metropolis like Atlanta that sits in a relatively rural (low income/low cost of living) state. I can tell you this, I know no bankruptcy attorney, regardless of political stripe or area of practice, that thinks the law is good – most jokingly refer to it as a return to debtor’s prison. ---
**Author:** ![Dishfunctional](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/35a633/32.png) [@Dishfunctional](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dishfunctional)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343/60 "2005-10-17T15:15:04Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > How does someone locked in a shitty job find the time and money… I don’t know… maybe get a better job? Unless by “locked” you mean that there’s chains and stuff, then the guy really does have problems! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bankruptcy-lines-the-revenge-of-the-capitalists/326343.md?page=4)