Joe Biden’s Bankruptcy Bill Could Complicate His Presidential Run

[brentspeak]

Basically, that transparently toxic bill (which W. Bush signed into law) is still one of the many factors continuing to drag on the nation's economy. It certainly is dragging on the personal lives and futures of many Gen X'ers and now Millennials whose student loans are overwhelming them. And, unfortunately, Biden was one of the very Democrats who supported it.

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18366/joe-biden-president-bankrupcty-bill

Joe Biden’s Bankruptcy Bill Could Complicate His Presidential Run
Elizabeth Warren has called out the current Vice President in the past.

BY David Sirota

As Vice President Joe Biden reportedly mulls a bid for the U.S. presidency, his champions portray him as a credible alternative to Democratic Party front-runner Hillary Clinton, who faces accusations that she is beholden to the financial industry. But a Biden campaign risks confronting the scorn of one of the party’s most influential progressives, Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Though Biden has reportedly sought her favor, Warren has historically disdained him, charging him with acting as a tool of the credit card industry by limiting debt relief for people grappling with financial troubles.

As a Harvard law professor in 2002, Warren published a journal article excoriating Biden for playing a leading role in delivering legislation that made it more difficult for Americans to reduce debts through bankruptcy filings. As the senator from Delaware, Biden’s repeated push for the bill—signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2005—amounted to “vigorous support of legislation that hurts women,” Warren declared. She said “the group that will be most affected by the changes in the bankruptcy legislation Senator Biden so forcefully supports will be women, particularly women heads of household who are supporting children.”

In a separate 2003 book she co-authored with her daughter, Warren said, “Senators like Joe Biden should not be allowed to sell out women in the morning and be heralded as their friend in the evening.”

snip

In her 2002 article, though, Warren accused Biden of playing an especially pernicious role in pressing the legislation, harnessing his reputation as an advocate for the interests of working women to curry the support of interest groups that would otherwise have opposed the bill. His support for the bankruptcy legislation, she said, provided crucial political cover that enabled other lawmakers to support the measure and avoid criticism from women’s groups.

[Le Taz Hot]

1. K & R

This is just one of many negatives for Biden. He's responsible for getting Clarence Thomas onto the bench and he's been real cozy with the credit cards companies that reside in his state.

[roguevalley]

28. considering the situation I was in when he voted and the spot of ashes on his forehead

for lent or whatever it was when he came to the microphone to bleat how awesome it was that credit card companies could fuck everyone as much as they want, it is MAJOR to me. I can even remember the ashes on his stupid forehead. It was humorous darkly to me then that a man could get communion or whatever it was, then go into the temple and fuck the poor. I have never had a good opinion of that hypocrite since. Not one bit.

[HerbChestnut]

2. There's a lot of things that will complicated Biden's run if that's what he chooses to do.

He's a great guy, but he was only in the single digits in terms of support in 2008 for a reason. I think he'd do much better than that this time around, but he'll face some challenges.

[Vinca]

3. My husband reminded me of that yesterday. It's a huge negative.

We've kind of forgotten Joe catered to the credit card industry when he was the Delaware senator.

[djean111]

4. I have seen it explained that Joe was just representing his constituents,

as if that made it okay. Nothing makes it okay.

[Statistical]

5. Also anyone who honestly believes that Joe's constituents were multi billion dollar banks ...

wouldn't be voting for Joe (or anyone with a D after their name) anyways.

Joe's real constituents were hurt by the bill as were millions of Americans across the country mostly poor and middle class. The only winners were the already massively profitable banks who became slightly more profitable.

[jeff47]

7. Well, his constituents work for those banks.

Delaware's banking laws are one of the reason a very large number of credit cards are actually issued by Delaware-based banks.

(South Dakota is the other major hub)

[Statistical]

10. Higher profits (leached from overly indebted customers) mean higher employment or wages? Really? nt

[jeff47]

12. No. But excellent work constructing that strawman.

If you're a peon at MBNA, your employer being required to not be a horrific vampire might be a problem.

[Statistical]

14. Really? Why?

Profits in banks are almost unconnected to employment. If the banks are marginally profitable or off the charts profitable they still need roughly the same number of peons. If you have any evidence to show the increased profitability of banks in any way helped the working class in Delaware please post it.

[jeff47]

17. Because the peons get cut to save the CEO's bonus. (nt)

[Statistical]

19. Sure. Keep believing that.

Banks don't hire peons to be nice. They don't hire peons to be friendly. The hire peons because when you pick up the phone or walk up to a teller as a customer you need someone to help you and if there isn't someone to help you then you might go to another company. In other words bank hire low level employees BECAUSE THOSE EMPLOYEES MAKE THEM LOTS AND LOTS OF MONEY. Firing them would make the bank less money.

Regardless of if a bank is making a modest profit or pouring in cash by the truckload they still need tellers, loan officers, fraud specialists and all the human cogs that make the money machine work. The idea that good ole Joe had to massively boosts the profits of banks in order to save some jobs that the banks needed in order to not fail is well laughable. Find me a single working class person in Delaware who was advocating for this bill because it saves jobs.

The only scenario where it might have saved jobs is if the banks were circling the drain and without bankruptcy "reform" (I think I puked in my mouth a little) they would have gone under. The reality is the bill moved banks from extremely unprofitable to obscenely unprofitable without needing to expand their business (and employment) at all.

I mean essentially you are arguing the failed and debunked rethug trickle down economics actually works! By that logic we should cut corporate tax rates to zero and cut taxes paid on CEO bonuses over $10M to massively boost employment.

[jeff47]

21. You really think they care more about customer service than their bonus?

Suuuuuuuuure.

I mean essentially you are arguing the failed and debunked rethug trickle down economics actually works!

Nope. I'm arguing that employees are well aware that "fraud" is a large part of why their bank remains in business. And are also aware that legislation barring despicable practices would hurt their employer's business, and thus be a threat to their paycheck.

When I worked for a defense contractor, I was well aware that voting a particular way could imperil my employment. I personally voted for what I felt was right, but plenty of my coworkers voted based on who would spend the most on the military.

[Statistical]

22. Like I said the bank went from insanely profitable to obscenely profitable.

Sometimes a bill is just all around shitty. Still keep clinging to this idea that only republicans support corporate masters and every Democrat like Joe is just a savior of the working class. Why good ole Joe had no choice the people of the state of Delaware cried out for him to move us one step closer to indentured servitude so Joe rolled up his sleeves and rig the debt system in the US in order to help everyone.

Maybe we should give him a medal for his actions in ensuring the poor marginally profitable banks eeked out a living and could keep people employed. I mean all those evil middle class consumers were only giving a half of pound of flesh and that had to stop. Humanitarian of the year in my book.

[jeff47]

23. Uh...not the argument I'm making.

Still keep clinging to this idea that only republicans support corporate masters and every Democrat like Joe is just a savior of the working class

Not the argument I'm making. I'm saying he serves the businesses that bring in most of Delaware's money. Some constituents like it, some hate it, and some hate it but vote for it for their paycheck.

[AtomicKitten]

6. That and his vote for the Iraq War are his biggest negatives.

[Fumesucker]

8. Biden is a huge Drug Warrior

In fact the position of Drug Czar was Biden's idea originally.

[AtomicKitten]

9. hands off my weed, man

[Attorney in Texas]

16. In all fairness, if the Iraq War vote is your litmus test, you are fishing in a small barrel (and --

SPOILER ALERT -- Sanders is your candidate).

[AtomicKitten]

18. It is an important issue to consider.

And, yes, I do fully support Bernie Sanders.

[kath]

11. That, and his horrible mishandling of C. Thomas's confirmation hearings

Which gave us asshole Clarence on the Supreme Court.
cannot forgive him for that.

[KoKo]

29. Yes...I watched the whole hearing where he held off the witness

who would verify Anita Hill's accusations against Thomas as the hearings went on after Midnight. He then closed the hearings after she had waited for hours to testify.

Clarence Thomas should have been impeached by now. I've never understood what caused Biden to handle those hearings so badly unless he had good reason, behind the scenes that profited him politcally, to do so. I've never trusted him since then....no matter how beloved everyone says he is to the PTB in D.C.

[Attorney in Texas]

13. Biden's a great guy but -- ideologically -- few issues distinguish him from Clinton and he's worse

on most of the issues where they are not identical.

In terms of expanding the ideological debate, Biden brings nothing new.

If you want Clinton but male, slightly older, and not part of any political dynasty, Biden is your candidate.

If you think Biden is Clinton without a private-email-issue, you are buying into a right-wing talking point. The private email server is just like Benghazi - it is a non issue that the right is trying to fabricate into an issue. if Biden were to run, they will make something up that is equally not a real issue but will create FauxNews talking points to run Biden down.

[bvar22]

15. I thought everyone had forgotten about Joe Biden's betrayal of the Democratic Party over this bill.

Of course, Biden is the Senator from MBNA,
and all the Credit Card Companies are incorporated in Delaware (Biden's State).



This points to an even bigger problem that doesn't get discussed.
Our states are in a Race to the Bottom to attract Corporate Business to their state.
Some have lowered taxes to near ZERO.
Corporations will gather and concentrate their power in states that grant then Tax Free privileges.
(SEE: Biden's vote to protect the Credit Card Industry)

The LESS they pay...the MORE you pay!
This is the road to Perdition for the USA.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. K&R As a Sanders backer, I hope Biden runs and takes the remaining wind out of Hillary's sails.

[Attorney in Texas]

24. As a Sanders backer, I think Biden takes more votes from Clinton but does more harm to Sadners

Sanders is an underdog because his views are more progressive than the ideological mid-point of the Democratic Party.

For such an underdog to win the nomination, Sanders needs the consolidated support of the progressive wing of the party (and he's crushing this task) plus the consolidated support from other Democrats who may be choosing a candidate for reasons beyond ideology (such as those who dislike the idea of a "dynasty," those who don't like or trust Clinton personally or don't like her style, those who don't like a candidate who has peremptorily locked in so many establishment party endorsements so early in the nomination process before the grassroots have had time to consider the candidates, etc.).

Biden cannot make inroads on Sanders' grassroots support from the progressive wing of the party who have chosen Sanders based on ideology (like me) because Biden has spent his whole very distinguished career at the ideological center of the party (he's much more hawkish than Sanders, he is much less inclined to regulate and tax business than Sanders, he is much more trusting of international trade agreements than Sanders, etc.).

Biden -- if he chooses to run -- will severely cut into Sanders' ability to gain the backing from segments of the party who will choose a candidate to support on grounds other than ideology (those voters who would prefer an alternative to Clinton but for reasons other than her ideology).

By cutting into Sanders ability to build support beyond the progressive wing of the party, a Biden candidacy would reduce Sanders from an underdog on the rise to the head of movement that is much less likely to produce a nominee.

A Biden candidacy would definitely take more votes from Clinton than from Sanders, but such a Biden candidacy would present an existential threat to Sanders' chances of winning the nomination as an underdog.

Before Clinton supporters rejoice at that prospect, consider that a Biden candidacy would not only significantly diminish Sanders' chances of winning the nomination, but a hypothetical Biden candidacy would weaken (possibly fatally weaken) Clinton's chances in the general election.

A Biden campaign could not surpass Clinton's campaign in terms of on-the-ground infrastructure, party establishment support, and fundraising networking because she has had an overwhelming head start over Biden in building those structures. At the earliest, Biden could not even make significant headway on this task until March (and only then Biden could not make much headway unless the wheels completely came off the Clinton campaign in both Iowa and New Hampshire, which is very unlikely; even if Sanders wins both states -- as I hope he does -- Clinton would have to do a lot worse than a close second in both states to cause any significant exodus).

However, a Biden candidacy would generate endless rounds of "Clinton campaign in crisis" MSM hand-wringing stories every time a fundraiser shifted to Biden or a politician withdrew from the Clinton campaign to support Biden (Biden is a well loved sitting VP so there would inevitably be a few defections but not nearly enough for Biden to win -- just enough to make Clinton look weaker).

Ultimately, Biden cannot win the nomination because Sanders has unshakable support among progressives and Clinton has an insurmountable head start in terms of locking down centrist/party establishment support and fund-raising sources. In the process of losing the primary (for the third time), Biden may kill off Sanders' underdog insurgency and fatally weaken Clinton's candidacy in the general election (which also changes Clinton's VP selection criteria and erodes Clinton's need to choose a progressive VP to unify the party if she barely beats Sanders in a Clinton-Sanders showdown), but it will still not result in a Biden nomination in any foreseeable likelihood.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. I see it differently.

Biden vs Hillary vs Sanders will split the conservative/moderate Democratic vote and make it a 3 way race which will Bernie a greater chance. The Bernie supporters won't abandon him but a whole helluva lot of Clinton supporters will abandon her for the (supposedly) "not as bad" Biden.

I don't like and won't vote for either Biden or Hillary. I will however vote for Bernie if he's nominated.

[Attorney in Texas]

26. We don't have a parliamentary system where a candidate with 35% beats two rivals with 30% each.

For Sanders to win the nomination, he needs over 50% of the delegates.

Currently, Sanders is the underdog in that task and Clinton is the favorite, but things are progressing in favor of Sanders -- he's less of an underdog now than he was in August and, back in August, he was less of an underdog than he was in July.

Biden entering the race makes Sanders getting over 50% of the delegates.

If there is brokered convention (no candidate enters the convention with 50% of the delegates), the party establishment is not going to pick Sanders over Clinton or Biden because Clinton and Biden ARE the party establishment.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. I'm uncovinced.

But, I will agree that the establishment will likely prevail. Whether with Hillary or Biden.