Warren-Biden Bankruptcy Fight

[bluewater]

In 2005, bankruptcy was on the rise and had been for years.
Lawmakers were pondering why, exactly, that was happening — and what, if anything, they should do about it — when two future presidential rivals squared off over a bankruptcy overhaul bill that would restrict who could write off their personal debts.

In one corner, Joe Biden — one of the staunchest Democratic advocates for the bill and a senator from Delaware, home to several large credit card companies. He was also a member of the Judiciary Committee, which was debating the bill.

In the other corner, Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law professor who had fought against this type of bankruptcy overhaul for years and who was on a panel convened for a hearing over the bill.

Their conversation started off with a testy (but weedy) exchange about bankruptcy courts. And it escalated from there, with plenty of interruptions and the occasional barb — Biden at one point cast Warren's arguments as "mildly demagogic." It ended with a tense dispute over what, exactly, the dispute ought to be.

WARREN: [Credit card companies] have squeezed enough out of these families in interest and fees and payments that never pay down principle.
BIDEN: Maybe should talk about usury rates. That maybe, that's what we should be talking about, not bankruptcy.
WARREN: Senator, I'll be the first. Invite me.
BIDEN: Now, I know you will, but let's call a spade a spade. Your problem with the credit-card companies is usury rates, from your position. It's not about the bankruptcy bill.
WARREN: But Senator, if you're not going to fix that problem, you can't take away the last shred of protection for these families.
BIDEN: OK, I get it. [pause] You're very good, Professor.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/11/731370440/democratic-presidential-debates-could-reignite-warren-biden-bankruptcy-fight

If you watch this clip of that exchange you can hear Joe Biden's tone when talking to Elizabeth Warren.

It's in the first few minutes and it got laughs, but honestly seems tone deaf and dismissive in 2019.

[aikoaiko]

1. This is a big fuckin deal.

I oook forward to Warren asking questions on the debate stage.

[Sneederbunk]

2. A good illustration of the difference between a Moderate and a Progressive.

[True Dough]

3. How dare you!

Bringing up Biden's record is out of bounds!!!!

[MarcA]

25. The new talking point is be positive, stop being negative.

It is largely replacing the only our candidate can win talking point.
IOW, our candidate's record is being examined and it doesn't look
so good, so time for a new talking point.

[True Dough]

28. I always feel it's necessary to throw in a qualifier

I've lost count of how many times I've written that Biden has done a great deal for the Dems. He's been a tremendous asset to the party, but his best days are behind him. It's not that I dislike the man or what he stands for in general, but he's simply not the strongest candidate in this incredibly talented field.

[yaesu]

4. she is 100% right, that bill was also one of the worst anti working class legislation ever backed

by a Dem, a big giveaway to the banksters who continue to abuse interest rates.

[bluewater]

15. I hope this topic comes up in the second debate.

It would be nice if Warren and Biden were on the same stage, but its going to be a random draw again.

[tishaLA]

44. Indeed.

I remember the day it passed the Senate like it was yesterday. A friend and I were driving toward downtown LA and I dont know which of us was angrier

[George II]

5. How many times are you going to post this...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287190385

[LibFarmer]

7. Complying with a communique from David Sirota nt

The DU subject lines eat accented characters - my communiqué became communiqu lol

[bluewater]

8. This post added an article about the exchange

The video link was also included here so people could hear the TONE of Biden's comments to Elizabeth Warren.


And honestly, I will post the video link as often as I think it's topical.

Attempts to influence what people post is not a good look.

[George II]

11. You could have added the article to the OP you posted 16 minutes prior to this. Flooding....

....the forums with the same stuff is, to quote you, "not a good look" either.

So, the video is topical every sixteen minutes?

[bluewater]

12. The definition of "going off on a tangent" comes to mind

go (off) on a tangent

To begin addressing or discussing a topic or topics not relevant to the main discussion.
I tried to address the customer's problem, but she kept going off on a tangent and I couldn't understand what her true complaint was.
In the middle of our conversation about my finances, my advisor went on a tangent about current events.
See also: go, on, tangent

Farlex Dictionary of Idioms. © 2015 Farlex, Inc, all rights reserved.


go off on a tangent

Fig. to pursue a somewhat related or irrelevant course while neglecting the main subject. Don't go off on a tangent. Stick to your job. Just as we started talking, Henry went off on a tangent about the high cost of living.
See also: go, off, on, tangent
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Believe it or not, some people use "going off on a tangent" as a rhetorical trick to avoid discussing a subject they find unpleasant.

[George II]

13. And then you proceed to do so. Well played.

[Pantagruel]

6. You forget

Obama-Biden appointed Warren in 2010 to protect consumers.
Painting Joe as the enemy is wrong and exactly what Trump is counting on.Look at the big picture.

[LibFarmer]

9. The goal of the OP is quite transparent nt

[bluewater]

16. It's very transparent actually. It's transparently supporting Eizabeth Warren.

The goal of the OP is to support Senator Warren and her positions by contrasting them directly to Joe Biden's.

It is transparently supporting Senator Warren.

It's transparently providing an article about an exchange on the Bankruptcy Law and supporting that with a video clip that people can view for themselves.

So, what's the problem with doing this again?

I thought it was Primary season and we discuss our candidates' positions and compare them?

[LibFarmer]

17. This OP doesn't help Sen Warren but it is targeted

to put Joe Biden in a negative light.

Posting the same OP under different headings repeatedly makes it clear.

[bluewater]

18. This OP helps Warren

That's why it upsets some people.

I hope it helps a lot.

[LibFarmer]

23. It doesn't. Warren being a consumer advocate is well known.

I smell David Sirota in such OPs, always trying a new angle to bring Biden down.

[oasis]

30. That's something for which we should all be on the look out.

[bluewater]

37. NEWSFLASH: A Voter consistently OPPOSES Biden in the primaries. Oh, the humanity!

[LibFarmer]

42. Opposing a candidate doesn't have to be vicious, venomous and repetitive.

More mileage may be obtained by stating positive things about your candidate.

Otherwise, people have a right to suspect what the real agenda is here.

[George II]

19. No it isn't. It's obliquely "supporting" Elizabeth Warren. It support by subtraction.

[Vegas Roller]

10. Next OP

Biden didn't cry loudly enough after being born and needed a slap on the butt to start breathing. That proves he is not a progressive.

[treestar]

14. Why do you want them to fight ?

Credit companies employed huge numbers in Delaware. Go back and it was DuPont. Senators look after their states. Warren herself has some baggage about medical device manufacturers. Why do you always have to be negative?

[George II]

20. Going negative is de rigueur.

[Celerity]

24. looking after their states implies that those companies needed that odious bill to survive. Those

giant multinational firm's well-being (indeed rapacious level profiteering off a rigged system) at the expense of millions of middle and lower class hard-working citizens is hardly a good look.

Biden has a long track recording of voting for (often helping ramrod through from the Democratic Senate side) or even writing multiple, massive legislation that ended up having horrid, multivariate impacts at widescale, systemic levels.

The 1986 Gun Bill that opened up the very gun show loophole ( and other noxious gun de-regulation) he then had to go and try and put back (uncessfully) into the bottle.

The horrid 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act that repealed Glass-Steagall (thus allowing the casino gambling investment banks to co-mingle funding with the massive thrifts), and the even worse Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (which re-legalised most all forms of toxic and systemic disastrous derivatives) Both of those two massive bills were ram-rodded through with the help of Biden, and helped systemically lay the foundation for the global financial crisis of 2007 to 2010 (over 30 trillion in global wealth wiped out or redistributed up the pyramid)

The Iraq War vote (we all know how that turned out, and the forces unleashed we are still dealing with today, all at the costs of trillions upon trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands (over a million if you add up all the interlocked conflicts that spun off and out of it and the Afghan wars).

and lastly (I will not going into others as do not want to write a book at this time, lol) this 2005 Bankruptcy Bill the OP is mentioning.



a great 2015 article on the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005:


The one Senate vote that makes it hard to support a Biden run

As a Senator in Delaware, Biden shepherded to passage a law that decimated bankruptcy protection for milllions

https://www.salon.com/2015/10/21/joe_bidens_greatest_betrayal_the_one_senate_vote_that_makes_it_hard_to_support_a_biden_run/

OCTOBER 21, 2015 3:58PM (UTC)

snip

On several occasions throughout the past 15 years, the colossally powerful banking lobby unsuccessfully pushed for new legislation to tighten the rules pertaining to who can file for bankruptcy protection, and how much protection they'll receive. The first time in recent memory occurred in 2000, when then-President Clinton pocket-vetoed bankruptcy reform legislation at the request of First Lady Hillary Clinton, who had been convinced to do so by a little known Harvard professor and vocal reformer named Elizabeth Warren. Joe Biden, on the other hand, voted for the bill. Another bill in 2001 failed to pass with Biden's vote. But the 2001 bill was resurrected after George W. Bush's second inauguration.

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) was passed in April, 2005 by the U.S. Senate in a 74-25 vote, including the "yea" vote of Joe Biden, and was quickly signed by President Bush. (Hillary Clinton skipped the vote. She did vote "yea" on the unsuccessful 2001 bill, although she later claimed to regret the vote, and explained that she had traded her support in order to make sure that alimony and child support payments weren't compromised by the new law. More on that later.)

In light of what occurred in its wake, this law is easily one of the most disgraceful aspects of the Bush and Biden legacies. The harm it did to middle-class Americans, especially during the crushing events of the recession four years later, is immeasurable. The bill made it nearly impossible for average families to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, also known as "clean slate" bankruptcies intended to discharge nearly all debts, a matter of a few years before they'd need it the most. The bill instituted an all new means test to determine whether debtors with insurmountable financial hardships earned enough income to pay back all or part of their unsecured debts, specifically credit debt. If they earned too much, a clean slate bankruptcy became impossible, and they'd be forced to file Chapter 13, which would force debtors to pay back their debt over a five-year timeline, thus legalizing neo-indentured-servitude to creditors.

Among other things, the bill also forced debtors to enroll in an "instructional course concerning personal financial management." The requirement still exists even though there's little evidence of its efficacy. Additionally, the bill made it more difficult to force creditors to stop harassing debtors for repayment after bankruptcy protection had been filed. As if all of this wasn't bad enough, the Biden-supported legislation prioritized credit card debt repayment over child support repayment, forcing women who are owed back support to negotiate with credit card companies over the debts owed by their exes. Furthermore, the term "debtor" was changed by the BAPCPA to "household" so that the new means test would take into account the total earnings of an entire household, rather than one debtor -- including, for example, a teen daughter's babysitting money.

Worse yet, the bill contained nothing to crack down on abusive practices by predatory lenders, including punitive interest rates and penalties. Unforgivably, Joe Biden was one of the leading cheerleaders of the bill.

Expecting penitence now from Biden is, of course, wishful thinking, considering his loyalty to home state of Delaware, which is the primary reason Biden supported every effort to screw middle class debtors. It turns out Delaware, specifically Wilmington, is the home base for a not insignificant number of credit card companies. During the Reagan '80s, a spate of new state laws were implemented to lure creditors from Manhattan to Wilmington by offering attractive tax incentives as well as defanging usury laws to allow companies such as Bank of America and Chase to charge significantly more onerous interest rates.

Put another way, the Bankruptcy Bill was great Biden and his Delawarean benefactors, but a financial atrocity for millions of families, made worse by the financial crisis and crippling recession that followed. While thousands of financial institutions received billions of dollars in relief during the recession, ordinary Americans who were hammered by medical and mortgage debt, not to mention record-smashing job losses, were more or less screwed. One study indicated that the BAPCPA "likely prevented a substantial increase in bankruptcy filings" during the recession: Even given the depth of the crisis, the number of bankruptcies rose to only around 1.5 million in 2010, which is 25 percent lower than the average number of bankruptcies per year prior to the bill's passage during a relatively healthy economy.

snip

[treestar]

43. paragraphs and paragraphs of negativity

Biden looked after Delaware. That was his job. Again, you could research Warren the same way. But I'm not into going on and on negatively about her either.

[lagomorph777]

21. Warren didn't just come up with her views last week.

She's been very consistent for decades.

[SouthernProgressive]

22. Not a good look.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287190385

Try supporting Warren without tearing down others.

Biden is a really good Democrat.

Warren might bring about a distinction but she will do it in a much more intelligent and respectful way than Harris. You just seem to want a fight to brew.

[bluewater]

26. Not a good tone

I was really triggered by Biden's dismissive tone to Warren. Pardon me for that.

That his dismissive comment got laughs triggered me even more.

As for how Warren will address this issue to Biden, lets hope they both get on the same debate stage soon and then we can see.

Thanks for the discussion.

[SouthernProgressive]

27. I hope people watch it. Warren was laughing as well.

It was a good exchange. Not dismissive as you outline it. But you are trying to reference it in terms of being "dismissive," which totaly misses the mark of the conversation and it's importance.

People who watch it will see what you have done.

[bluewater]

29. I really hope people will watch it. She didn't enjoy being laughed at.

Warren's expression at the laughter says it all. She looked uncomfortable.

People can decide for themselves if she was laughing it up at Biden's comment or just nervously laughing about being dismissed and put on the spot.

Honestly, I looked at it again since your post and her expression at the end of that clip looked uncomfortable.

And what is telling, after the clip, when she talked about it with Chris Hayes, she didn't laugh about the exchange, she didn't seem amused by it at all.

When asked by Chris Hayes what did she learned from that exchange she said: "You don't get what you don't fight for."

[marylandblue]

31. This issue is impossible for them to ignore, as it was a direct clash,

between the two of them and unlike busing, it is of direct consequence to today's families. It's not a manufactured issue. Also unlike busing, the Bankruptcy Law can be changed. Warren will change it, Biden will not.

If experience and policy matter, then there is no way to promote Warren's experience and policy in economics without implicitly or explicitly criticizing Biden, nor is there a way to promote Biden's economic experience and policies without criticizing Warren.

[SouthernProgressive]

32. I agree with you completely. Your assessment completely differs from the op.

I even worded my response in a way that would already show I agree with you as you have stated here.

They tried to slide it back to the "sexist" game. It's complete BS.

The op seems to be concerned about "tone." That is my issue.

[marylandblue]

34. Ok, fair enough.

[SouthernProgressive]

35. Biden Warren is my dream primary.

They cover the spectrum of the party and can explain their positions without stuttering or apologizing. Just like I feel Warren Clinton would have been an amazing primary in '16.

[stonecutter357]

33. good let's go Joe !

[stonecutter357]

36. At what point in your life did you re·al·ize the republican party is racist POS party ?

[Honeycombe8]

38. Yes, that was a disturbing, very harmful bill. He pushed it & voted for it numerous times...

before it finally passed & signed by a Republican President. Bill Clinton wouldn't sign it. At one time (I think THIS time, in the video), he put it in the Foreign Policy Bill (Biden was the Committee Chair), so it would hopefully squeak by. NO OTHER DEMOCRAT ON THE COMMITTEE VOTED TO PUT IT IN THAT BILL.

It's clear to me that Biden was acting on a directive by his big donor credit card companies, many of whom are headquartered in Delaware. (DE is very tax friendly to corporations, so many American corporations are incorporated there, even though they do business elsewhere.)

I remember hearing about it on the news and couldn't believe my ears. Something about people not being able to get out from under massive medical bills, because of that new BR bill. (I think all debt could go into consideration of bankruptcy; it's just that people couldn't discharge the medical debt to make it go away.) I could not believe that a Democrat had been responsible for such a bill that would harm so many working people. What is bankruptcy for, but to help a person under crushing debt, esp. if the person isn't responsible for the debt?

The bill also made them go thru credit counseling, which has proved to be ineffective, at best. If you have $60,000 in medical debt, credit counseling is not going to help. I mean, we're not talking about BR from buying a bunch of purses at Macy's.

(I also noticed the way he spoke to Warren in that video. It wasn't bad. But it was dismissive...oh, you have a problem with usury, little lady. You don't understand that this is about bankruptcy, not usury laws. Then when she rebuts that, he flashes that big white-toothed grin and treats her like a joke..."Oh, I get it....thanks, "Professor."&quot

[bluewater]

39. "But it was dismissive..."

It was the crowd laughter that bothered me the most. Biden knew he was playing to the crowd, you can hear it in his voice, and he got the response he wanted.

As for the Bankruptcy Bill, I really hope Warren and Biden end up on the same stage next debate, this issue needs that level of exposure.

[Honeycombe8]

40. You know what they need to do....

Warren and others. They need to stress that many of the people filing for bankruptcy are not deadbeats, but are often mothers of children, left with debt from an absconding husband, or people who already had reasonable debt but then got sick and got hit with stiff medical bills. Things like that.

The perception by some (many?) is that people who file for bankruptcy are deadbeats. They go around buying stuff, and then file for bankruptcy so they don't have to pay for that stuff. Then they start over a few years later, buying a lot of stuff again and filing for bankrtupcy again. (Like Trump has done.)

So people aren't sympathetic with that, naturally. I've known a deadbeat or two who filed for BR to get rid of debts, hid some of the stuff and hid money. The BR wiped out their debts.

I don't know the percentage, but I think the deadbeats are a small fraction of the bankruptcies. Most are legitimate. Besides, it's unfair to punish all debtors for the sins of a few. There could be better rules to weed out those who are filing bankruptcies just to get rid of their debt, which they racked up intentionally or have the ability to pay.

[bluewater]

41. +1000

My view on bankruptcy is that banking is a two way street. If banks are going to make the profits, they have to own the risks.

Otherwise predatory lending schemes, of which there are many, become NO RISK, PURE PROFIT