# U.S. Bankruptcy Bill’s March of Triumph **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 9, 2005, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679 "2005-03-09T16:07:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2005, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679/81 "2005-04-01T15:03:22Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > One of the proposed measures requires bankruptcy attorneys to certify that all items in his clients papers (income, debts, assets, etc.) are accurate and true, making the attorney responsible if any items turn out to be inaccurate or false. This means that attorneys will find it necessary to bring in accountants, auditors, etc. to vet his client’s filing papers, all of whom will have fees of their own to charge in addition to the attorney’s. The attorney will have to raise his own fees as well to cover the additional risk he’s taking. \*\* This condition applies to everyone who files for bankruptcy, even filers whose incomes are below the state’s median income. \*\* Under present law, many attorneys can charge their clients sums such as $600 to $900 to help them file for bankruptcy. (Of course, the fees can get much higher depending on how complicated the bankruptcy is.) Under the new law, attorney’s fees will skyrocket to several thousand easily, effectively putting Chapter 7 bankruptcy beyond the reach of many if not most low income filers. \*\* This means that, because they will not be able to raise the funds necessary to file, millions of low income households will be denied bankruptcy protection as a means of debt relief. \*\* I certainly consider that draconian. I’m reasonably sure I’m going to regret this because I think I already know the answer. But where are you getting this? From what part of the bill’s text do you derive this requirement to bring in “accountants, auditors, etc.” and by what analysis do you get from the text to your claim? And last but not least, are you aware that persons may file for bankruptcy _pro se_ or with the assistance of a non-attorney debt relief agency? What do you think of the limitations and increased disclosure requirements on debt relief agencies? On a separate subject, do you believe that the increased restrictions on creditors as regards affirmation agreements are part of a plan to screw the poor? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2005, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679/82 "2005-04-01T15:59:33Z")
> [@Lonsome Polecat](#): > > If this “crisis” is due to deadbeats who just don’t want to pay their bills, as the credit card industry insists, why should the state protect the credit card industry from its own reckless and irresponsible practices? You realize, of course, that this same argument can be made against requiring anyone to repay their debts to any solvent business. I get a credit card, use it to buy groceries, then I don’t pay the credit card bill. It is the credit company’s fault for giving a credit card to me. I buy a car, take it home, and don’t make any payments. It’s the dealer’s fault for selling to someone like me. I hire an attorney to help me file for bankruptcy. I then stop payment on the retainer check. It’s the lawyer’s fault - obviously someone filing for bankruptcy is a deadbeat. Etc. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2005, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679/83 "2005-04-01T18:00:59Z")
“Flounder, you can’t spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You fucked up – you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it!” –Eric ‘Otter’ Stratton ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2005, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679/84 "2005-04-01T18:17:28Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > I’m reasonably sure I’m going to regret this because I think I already know the answer. But where are you getting this? From what part of the bill’s text do you derive this requirement to bring in “accountants, auditors, etc.” and by what analysis do you get from the text to your claim? And last but not least, are you aware that persons may file for bankruptcy _pro se_ or with the assistance of a non-attorney debt relief agency? What do you think of the limitations and increased disclosure requirements on debt relief agencies? Some quotes from the article “Debt Attorneys See Red in Senate Bill” at [http://biz.yahoo.com/law/050316/da494a48bfd3ad3ad2a24528d5caa9c0\_1.html](http://biz.yahoo.com/law/050316/da494a48bfd3ad3ad2a24528d5caa9c0_1.html) > [@](#): > > The unamended provisions would: > > Require the debtor’s attorney to certify the accuracy of all factual allegations in the debtor’s bankruptcy petitions and schedules. Attorneys would be subject to sanctions if any factual inaccuracies resulted in the dismissal of the client’s Chapter 7 petition or in its conversion to a Chapter 13 petition, which requires some repayment of debt. The attorney could also be responsible for lawyer fees of the trustee or bankruptcy administrator who contested the Chapter 7 discharge … > > … A number of debtor and creditor attorneys said that the proposed certification requirements would force them to hire private investigators, appraisers and auditors to verify the value of client assets. > > The certification requirements will hit particularly hard those attorneys who do pro bono bankruptcies – a substantial group, according to the ABA. They will be unwilling to bear the increased costs, debtor attorneys warned. > > Sen. Bingaman noted during last week’s debate that the University of New Mexico School of Law informed him that it would no longer be able to handle bankruptcy cases in its clinics if the certification requirements become law. > > Marc Stern, a Seattle debtor’s attorney, warned that the certification requirements will drive up the cost of filing a bankruptcy with a lawyer. And reaffirmation agreements will become a thing of the past, he added. “No lawyer is going to certify the client has the ability to make payments,” he said. “How do you know? I won’t do them.” > > Stern added, "I can’t wait for the first case where there is certification and the debtor doesn’t make the payments. You have a creditor saying, ‘I relied upon that certification and wouldn’t have agreed otherwise. Guess what, Mr. Lawyer – you guaranteed and I detrimentally relied on your certification. Therefore I want you to make the payments.’ " > > Another Seattle attorney, Chuck Helm of Helm, Helm & Lovejoy, who does only unsecured collections work, agreed, saying, "I wouldn’t represent a debtor if I had to sign a declaration. These cases don’t generate enough fees to justify putting my butt on the line. > > “The downside is too high and I’m sure my malpractice carrier would agree and I’m sure my rates would reflect that,” he added. I’d quote more, but I think I’m straining the patience of the mods as it is. I trust I have made my point. > [@manhattan](#): > > On a separate subject, do you believe that the increased restrictions on creditors as regards affirmation agreements are part of a plan to screw the poor? YES!!! YES!!! THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I’M SAYING!!! This is an evil law!!! Ravening, unconscionable, raw, ugly, naked GREED is the sole motive for passing this law, not any concern for justice or the good of the nation. Excuse me while I set off some fireworks and ring a church bell to underscrore my point, but, yes, Manhattan, that is EXACTLY what I’m saying. The goal of this bill, the only reason for its existence, is to make bankruptcy more difficult or impossible for the average filer, and the motive for doing so is the disgusting greed of the credit card industry. Forgive the arm waving and shouting, but I’m near the end of my patience. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2005, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679/85 "2005-04-01T18:21:50Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You realize, of course, that this same argument can be made against requiring anyone to repay their debts to any solvent business. > > I get a credit card, use it to buy groceries, then I don’t pay the credit card bill. It is the credit company’s fault for giving a credit card to me. > > I buy a car, take it home, and don’t make any payments. It’s the dealer’s fault for selling to someone like me. > > I hire an attorney to help me file for bankruptcy. I then stop payment on the retainer check. It’s the lawyer’s fault - obviously someone filing for bankruptcy is a deadbeat. All I can say to this is, you have some rather quaint notions about causality. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2005, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679/86 "2005-04-01T18:35:26Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > YES!!! YES!!! THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I’M SAYING!!! This is an evil law!!! Ravening, unconscionable, raw, ugly, naked GREED is the sole motive for passing this law, not any concern for justice or the good of the nation. Excuse me while I set off some fireworks and ring a church bell to underscrore my point, but, yes, Manhattan, that is EXACTLY what I’m saying. The goal of this bill, the only reason for its existence, is to make bankruptcy more difficult or impossible for the average filer, and the motive for doing so is the disgusting greed of the credit card industry. Forgive the arm waving and shouting, but I’m near the end of my patience. Well, that’s what I get for posting too hastily. Man, the restrictions on affirmation agreements you’re talking about don’t change the fact that this bill was crafted by industry for the sole purpose of promoting their own interests at the expense of the American people as whole. They are only concerned with squeezing as much money as they possibly can out of the rest of us, and they don’t care whose lives they ruin as long as their profits soar. This bill is a gift of billions of dollars to its backers, and it is indeed a plan to screw not only the poor but much of the middle class as well. I’m growing weary of this subject, but I confess to a morbid curiosity about the weird rationalizations the bill’s supporters on this thread are going to come up with next. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2005, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679/87 "2005-04-01T19:28:41Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > WTF are you two talking about? > > My point is simple. Let’s look at Joe Smith, average American. He makes a typical salary of $35,000 a year and is carrying the typical credit card debt of $7,000 a year. He loses his job. As a result he can’t pay his bills anymore so he is forced to declare bankruptcy. I’m simply stating that the amount of credit card debt he is carrying is the primary cause of the bankruptcy, not the layoff. (Or divorce.) No, this is what you said: > [@](#): > > Also, even if someone did lose their job or go through a divorce, that only causes a bankruptcy if you are already living beyond your means. I’d say that the average household carrying $7,000 of credit card debt is the leading cause of bankruptcy. Just because it takes a layoff or a divorce to nudge these people over the edge \*\* doesn’t make them innocent of making unwise financial decisions \*\*that truly led to the bankruptcy option. (emphasis added) You are clearly making a moral judgment here, and you are clearly saying that the borrower in this situation is guilty of some moral failure. If someone seduces your wife, it isn’t only your wife who is guilty of adultery; and if you knowingly offer a drink to an alcoholic, it isn’t only the alcoholic who is responsible for the bender that may ensue. For quite a long time now, many credit card issuers have been extending absurd lines of credit to people with questionable credit histories and/or shaky finances, but they now want to change the rules of the game so that most of their victims…uh, customers can no longer claim bankruptcy protection. You guys see nothing wrong with this. I says it’s spinach, and I says to hell with it. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2005, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679/88 "2005-04-01T19:38:25Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Ya know, I was with you all the way right up until I read the last two words. I don’t see anybody waving the flag here or lambasting the anti-reform side with accusations of cowardice or anti-Americanism. If you turned the rhetoric down a few notches, you might find a lot more people would listen to you. > > Think before you post. I’m not here to win friends and influence people, though that’s always nice. I’m here to express my ideas and opinions, however unpalatable they may be to some. There’s been no obvious flag-waving, but i find the theme of Amurrican indifference to the poor (even by the Amurrican poor themselves, which is kinda funny if you think about it) to be widespread enough to trot it out whenever it seems right. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2005, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679/89 "2005-04-01T19:41:46Z")
> [@chairmanoftheboard](#): > > I am not arguing that the credit card companies will not benefit from this legislation. But just because it will be good for them does not make it okay for people spending irresponsibly to take advantage of the system. Are you suggesting that just because banking is a profitable industry it is okay for people to essentially steal from the credit card companies? You’re just saying you value the welfare of credit card companies a lot more than you value the welfare of human beings. Gotcha. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2005, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679/90 "2005-04-01T19:47:56Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You realize, of course, that this same argument can be made against requiring anyone to repay their debts to any solvent business. > > I get a credit card, use it to buy groceries, then I don’t pay the credit card bill. It is the credit company’s fault for giving a credit card to me. > > I buy a car, take it home, and don’t make any payments. It’s the dealer’s fault for selling to someone like me. > > I hire an attorney to help me file for bankruptcy. I then stop payment on the retainer check. It’s the lawyer’s fault - obviously someone filing for bankruptcy is a deadbeat. > > Etc. > > Regards, > Shodan If you were an auto dealer who sent car keys to people through the mail, and invited them down to your lot to pick up a car if they just signed the attached slip of paper, prolly not a lot of people would be deeply sympathetic to you when you complained that a lot of people were taking your cars and not paying for them. Especially if your response to the sitaution was to get Congress to pass a law allowing you to hire bounty hunters to break into people’s houses and take their stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2005, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679/91 "2005-04-01T19:55:05Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > This is a valid point. I honestly have no idea how you have twisted it to somehow make me guilty of: > > - absolving the lenders of anything > - saying the lenders should not suffer consequences of irresponsible lending practices\*\* > - claming that those who declare bankruptcy are bad people\*\* When you said the people who accept credit cards and then declare bankrupty are NOT INNOCENT you clearly meant they were guilty. And being guilty, they should be punished. So we don’t have to care about what the bankruptcy bill does to them, because they NOT INNOCENT and are suffering the just punishments of the system. And of course, this bill will also harm the children of people who are hurt by it. But they’re not important, because their parents are NOT INNOCENT. I’m just trying to make you face up to the moral results of your position, Debaser. Let me know if you want anything else 'splained to you. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2005, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679/92 "2005-04-01T20:12:21Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > You are clearly making a moral judgment here, and you are clearly saying that the borrower in this situation is guilty of some moral failure. No. I’m not. I type “unwise financial decisions” and you are somehow reading “guilty of some moral failure.” You’re putting words into my mouth. I haven’t said what you are accusing me of and I would like you to rethink this and then retract your accusations and apologize. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2005, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679/93 "2005-04-01T20:20:07Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > When you said the people who accept credit cards and then declare bankrupty are NOT INNOCENT you clearly meant they were guilty. And being guilty, they should be punished. So we don’t have to care about what the bankruptcy bill does to them, because they NOT INNOCENT and are suffering the just punishments of the system. > And of course, this bill will also harm the children of people who are hurt by it. But they’re not important, because their parents are NOT INNOCENT. > > I’m just trying to make you face up to the moral results of your position, Debaser. Let me know if you want anything else 'splained to you. What. The. Fuck. You have just invented an entire paragraph on complete and total bullshit to attribute to me. Congratulations. However, attempts at fiction should probably stay out of GD, and instead be posted in MPSIMS. I’d ask your you to consider your idiotic rant for a moment, and then apologize and retract, but I know it will never happen. I don’t know **LonesomePolecat** , or his posting history. It’s quite possible he just made an innocent mistake reading into my post stuff that wasn’t there. Or maybe he just confused my post with others in the thread. However, I’m familiar enough with your posting history to know that you won’t back down an inch, even though it’s obvious that you are completely wrong and way out of line. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2005, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679/94 "2005-04-01T20:37:43Z")
C’mon, Debaser. I laid out the steps I took to get from Point A to Point B. If you wish to disagree with any of them, just say so. You could say, “When I said, ‘Not innocent’ I meant X” instead of the reasoning I attributed to you. Most of the time, when a conservative calls for someone to be “responsible” or points out that they are “not innocent” or “guilty” they mean that we should not worry about their suffering because it’s their fault. If you disagree with ANY of this, set me straight. Tell me what the hell you DO mean. Is there some nuance I am missing? I am really good with words and meanings, Debaser. Lay it on me. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2005, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679/95 "2005-04-01T21:45:17Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Most of the time, when a conservative calls for someone to be “responsible” or points out that they are “not innocent” or “guilty” they mean that we should not worry about their suffering because it’s their fault. This is the problem - the part where you make things up and attribute them to other people. You did it here too: > [@Evil Captor](#): > > Especially if your response to the sitaution was to get Congress to pass a law allowing you to hire bounty hunters to break into people’s houses and take their stuff. Is it really that challenging for you to react to what people post? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2005, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679/96 "2005-04-01T21:51:37Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > No. I’m not. I type “unwise financial decisions” and you are somehow reading “guilty of some moral failure.” You’re putting words into my mouth. I haven’t said what you are accusing me of and I would like you to rethink this and then retract your accusations and apologize. Retraction? Apology? Ain’t gonna happen. You keep trying to imply that there’s some kind of problem with too many bankruptcies these days (which may or may not be true) and it’s all the fault of stupid or dishonest borrowers and not in any way the fault of our noble credit industry which would never, ever dream of twisting and warping the laws in their own favor, so obviously we gotta gut the bankruptcy laws. Wouldn’t want those stupid and/or dishonest debtors to get out of paying their debts so easily, ya know. If that isn’t your position, will you please be so kind as to tell us what it is? ‘Cuz you’re soundin’ more and more like a character from an Ayn Rand novel here. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679/97 "2005-04-02T22:38:28Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This is the problem - the part where you make things up and attribute them to other people. I explained my interpretation of what Debaser meant and called on him to correct me if I was wrong in any respect, by telling me what he actually did mean. Haven’t heard a peep out of him. I suppose that constitutes “making things up” in your world, but in mine it’s called “communicating.” > [@](#): > > You did it here too: It’s called an analogy, Shodan. I was showing how the credit industry was doing unwise business practices and then trying to get Congress to help them lever people out of their possessions/money when the inevitable happened. By making the business practices different I tried to show the utter hypocrisy of the credit industry’s position. Guess you missed that. > [@](#): > > Is it really that challenging for you to react to what people post? Not at all. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2005, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679/98 "2005-04-03T16:17:35Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > > [@Shodan](#): > > > > Is it really that challenging for you to react to what people post? > > Not at all. Then let me rephrase the question - is it really that challenging for you react to what other people post in an intellectually honest way? Hint: Interpreting “people who declare bankruptcy are generally guilty of making unwise financial decisions” as saying “all poor people suck and are stupid and deserve to be robbed and have their children starved in front of their eyes and all conservatives think so” is _not_ intellectually honest. If you care to respond without exaggerations and strawmen, feel free. Otherwise, I will assume you cannot come up with any realistic responses. As seems often to be the case. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2005, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679/99 "2005-04-03T23:51:07Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Then let me rephrase the question - is it really that challenging for you react to what other people post in an intellectually honest way? > > Hint: Interpreting “people who declare bankruptcy are generally guilty of making unwise financial decisions” as saying “all poor people suck and are stupid and deserve to be robbed and have their children starved in front of their eyes and all conservatives think so” is _not_ intellectually honest. > > If you care to respond without exaggerations and strawmen, feel free. Otherwise, I will assume you cannot come up with any realistic responses. As seems often to be the case. > > Regards, > Shodan Shodan, I’ve several times asked a question here that you and other apparent supporters of this bill keep dancing around and around: \* Why do we need this bill at this time? \* It isn’t because the poor banking and credit card industries are being destroyed by the number of bankruptcies; their profits are quite healthy. And, despite claims to the contrary, people don’t generally declare bankruptcy because they’re gulty of making unwise financial decisions. That’s a crock. As far as I can tell the only thing this bill accomplishes is, in another poster’s words, to give the lenders a big stack of money with a ribbon on it. It’s a bad bill. It’s a classic example of the law being perverted to benefit the rich at the expense of–well, just about everybody else. If you want honesty, give honesty. Explain why this bill absolutely had to be passed and what benefit the nation–not just the fat cats—is supposed to derive from it. Because anything else is a dishonest evasion, which is every bit as bad as exaggeration and strawmen. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2005, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679/100 "2005-04-04T13:43:00Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Shodan, I’ve several times asked a question here that you and other apparent supporters of this bill keep dancing around and around: \* Why do we need this bill at this time? \* Because bankruptcies and credit card debt are on the rise. And, in the opinions of those who support the bill, there are instances where debtors could pay back the money they borrowed rather than not doing so. If you want me to defend the notion that banks and credit card companies will collapse without the bill, I have not made that claim. If you are proposing that no bill should ever be passed unless there is a crisis, I disagree. In many or most instances, I would prefer that crises be averted rather than waiting until the problem is too large to be ignored. YMMV. > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > It isn’t because the poor banking and credit card industries are being destroyed by the number of bankruptcies; their profits are quite healthy. As I mentioned earlier, and which you seemed to deny without refuting, this argument seems to indicate that there is never a reason to pay a debt if the industry in question is solvent. The mortgage industry is not hurting too badly, and yet I have to make my house payment every month. I don’t see how the solvency of an industry matters to the moral obligation to pay back money you have borrowed if you are able to do so. Suppose I loan you $1000. Suppose you defaulted on the debt. It wouldn’t break me financially. I could survive the loss and remain solvent. Does that mean you are under no obligation to pay me back? What this bill seems to be meant to do is to push people who borrowed money - and that is exactly what a credit card is - in the direction of actually paying back money that they owe instead of renouncing the debt altogether. The whole process remains under the jurisdiction of the courts, so if you want to entertain notions of evil Mr. Moneybags gloating over his wealth while widows and orphans starve in the snow, feel free to discuss how the judge in the bankruptcy case came to decide that people who could pay their debts ought to do so. > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > And, despite claims to the contrary, people don’t generally declare bankruptcy because they’re gulty of making unwise financial decisions. That’s a crock. Actually, that this is “a crock” has not been established. If you are defining “medical reasons” as a cause beyond the debtor’s control, cites already listed seem to indicate that at least half the time, medical expenses are not involved in bankruptcies. Besides, if medical expenses are the problem, I don’t see why a credit card company would be pressing for bankruptcy reform. When was the last time you put your hospital stay on your Mastercard? > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > As far as I can tell the only thing this bill accomplishes is, in another poster’s words, to give the lenders a big stack of money with a ribbon on it. Actually, if you change the word “give” to “return to”, and the phrase “with a ribbon on it” to “that the debtor borrowed, in instances where they could actually repay it without disaster”, you have a better characterization of the effects of the bill. > [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > It’s a bad bill. It’s a classic example of the law being perverted to benefit the rich at the expense of–well, just about everybody else. Asking people to pay their debts is “perverting the law”? I see it in just the opposite way. The general expectation that people who are able to do so should pay back money that they borrow is a social contract I would prefer to see preserved. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-bankruptcy-bill-s-march-of-triumph/293679.md?page=6)