Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bankruptcy Counseling Law Doesn't Deter Filings

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 08:23 AM
Original message
Bankruptcy Counseling Law Doesn't Deter Filings
Three months after a new bankruptcy law took effect, the overwhelming majority of debtors seen by credit counseling agencies are filing for bankruptcy instead of using repayment plans envisioned by the law's supporters.

The law requires debtors to see credit counselors before they file for bankruptcy protection. It is a prerequisite that banks and credit card issuers hoped would steer consumers away from bankruptcy court and into plans that would allow them to repay debts over a few years.

But so far, that is not happening.
....
Graves said that so far, his counselors have seen people "with true hardships," such as lost jobs or disabilities that cut their income. "We have yet to see anybody who charged up their debts, used cash advances" and abused their credit, probably because those kinds of debtors filed before the new law took effect, he said.

In many cases, debtors are in such financial distress that they cannot even afford the counseling fee.......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011601291_2.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. And as for those without true hardships,
many of them are manic-depressives who are hitting rock bottom after their up stages. The credit card companies seduce the manics real easily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
17. You're onto something there
When it comes to mental connections between today's behaviors and tomorrow's consequences, some of us are ants, some are grasshoppers (to invoke the old fable).

That's neither good nor bad, it just is - presumably such a spread of mental styles has served a purpose in our biological past, else it would have been edited out by nature long ago.

Our culture requires thinking and conformance to an "ant" model when it comes to accounts, taxes, old-age savings, and even such things are parking tickets. Some people find these things easy to handle, and some find them as difficult as composing a symphony.

We don't consider those who can't compose a symphony morally defective. Why should we feel the same about the grasshoppers among us? We need a better way of accommodating all the varieties of human personality. One that specifically doesn't involve seduction by credit card companies of those most vulnerable to their "you can have it all" message. These companies know full well that x-percent of the people they shove these cards onto will end up in ruin because of it. The statistics are highly stable - further reinforcement of the nature-driven origin of this susceptibility.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mandate My Ass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
2. They knew less than 3% of filers were irresponsible spenders
The "credit counselors" are employees of the same banks and credit card companies that wrote that POS legislation. This is a way for them to fleece and degrade the downtrodden even more than before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FloridaPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. Also - 100% of the credit card companies have outrageous rates.
When are we going to see credit card reform?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
3. So they fell for the mythology that people weren't losing jobs and
weren't in trouble due to medical bills. They fell for the GOP line that the reason people were in debt was because they were living high rather than because the economy sucked and the health care system was a wreck. An eye opener, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nomen Tuum Donating Member (396 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
4. And what will Joe Biden say about that?
We're waiting, Joe...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalhistorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Or Lieberman or Hillary
or any of the other Dems who voted for it? We're all waiting..........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKNancy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Neither Clinton or Lieberman voted for the
Edited on Tue Jan-17-06 08:59 AM by OKNancy
bankruptcy bill

---

Edit- here is a list of the Democrats who voted for the bill ( plus Jeffords)

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Clinton had a not voting and IMHO is a cowards way of voting YEA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKNancy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Perhaps she had more important things to do
on the day of the vote...March 10th 2005. Since it was going to pass anyway, her vote was not going to make a difference anyway.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/10/national/main679236.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainscents Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. Her husband (Bill) was in the hospital having a heart surgery.
Back off on her! I don't like her, however, she had good reason that day for not voting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKNancy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. I hope you weren't directing that at me
since I posted a link to the story about Bill's heart surgery that day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. That makes it OK? It's like me saying I had better things to do on
Election day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKNancy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Did you read the link I posted?
Sometimes family comes first. If her vote would have made a difference, then yes, she should have voted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. Yes, that does make it okay
Geez. I'm not a fan of HRC, but being with your husband while he has a potentially dangerous operation is definitely a good reason for missing a vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. No, it's NOT okay. As an elected official she has a responsibility to....
...represent her constituency in Congress, regardless of her personal situation.

She could have very easily have made the trip to DC, voted, and returned to her husband's side without missing very much at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Sorry, I can't agree with that
Elected officials give up certain privileges and rights of private life, but not this. We have to agree to disagree on this. And, I'll say this about ANY elected official.

And, "not missing much at all"? I've been waiting on pins and needles in the waiting room while a loved one is in a serious operation. You would be missing "much" if you weren't there, even if to others it seems like nothing is happening. Your whole life is happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. I could be wrong but didn't biden sponcer this bill...
after all the credit card companies are in his district and anyone with a brain knows that he's in their back pocket.

but, you know, I don't want to go around spreading rumors....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. yep, senator "MBNA" biden was a sponsor. what a senator he is.
I mean, those scalito hearings certainly would have been a bore without those hat hijinx. Thank gawd his offspring made it into an Ivy League school.

biden is owned: lock, stock and barrel by MBNA. He is their boy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleedingheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
7. Because the Reasons for Bankruptcy WERE NOT ADDRESSED
but I guess we DUers already knew that.

Universal Health Care might make a difference.
Laws restricting borrowers from predatory practice might make a difference.
Living Wages and working to reduce unemployment...might make a difference...

BUT putting the SCREWS to people never works!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FloridaPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. How about not sending jobs overseas. That would have made a
difference with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinniped Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
11. Hey, fuck you graves.
Edited on Tue Jan-17-06 09:36 AM by pinniped
--. "We have yet to see anybody who charged up their debts, used cash advances" and abused their credit, probably because those kinds of debtors filed before the new law took effect, he said.--

Ya, real people with real problems do exist, asshole.

Pretty stupid answer, graves, guess this small percentage that didn't file before the BS law will just have to pay now.:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zann725 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
14. I was wondering (due to loss of job, med bills)...one went 120+ past-due
on bills (due to total lack of income)...and couldn't even afford to file Bankruptcy? Under new laws, what happens?

I'm told that creditors techically HAVE TO write-off past due amounts at 120 past due, to balance books. Are any creditor actions (on UNsecured credit) past due amounts even have valid cause to continue collection on amounts already written-off, or are their many-time one-man office, small-time "collectors" just scare tactics?

Not that one plans to, but IF...as often argued BEFORE the new Bankruptcy legislaton...people largely do NOT mismanage money into debt, but get into debt by loss of job, or illness and large med bills?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
16. The credit card industry fooled itself with its sob stories
I used to edit a publication in the field, and I had otherwise sensible people from Visa and MasterCard and Citibank telling me all these horror stories about guys with $30 million mansions in Florida going BK and keeping their mansion and Jag. The real stats: About 95 percent of BK filings are the result of divorce, illness and/or job loss.

A far smaller percentage are from foolish spending and credit card debt. Those people are going to have to sign a repayment plan under the new law, but they probably would have under the old law too. Bankruptcy judges are very lenient when the bankruptcy is the result of something that isn't your fault, but much less sympathetic is you stocked your house with plasma TVs, then couldn't pay the bill.

I hope the credit card industry just chokes on this. Mean-spirited doesn't even begin to describe them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. Right on
I still hold a big grudge towards all who voted for this law. Who will it affect most? Those without the ability to pay or those who are squeezed. It's just a boon for the credit card companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Myths abound when fat-cats want legislation
Edited on Tue Jan-17-06 02:19 PM by SoCalDem
Remember the tractors in front of congress when the repubes were pushing "the death tax"?

In FACT, family farms are NOT sold "to pay the taxes"... They are sold because the grown "kids" & grandkids don;t want to/can;t farm, and if that farm is Grandpa's ONLY asset and it's to be divided up 6 or 7 ways, is HAS to be sold..but not for taxes..

repubes are all spin & lies..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
54anickel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. And they continue to feed the myth with more lies outta their arses!
"We have yet to see anybody who charged up their debts, used cash advances" and abused their credit, probably because those kinds of debtors filed before the new law took effect, he said.

PROBABLY? Howz-bout some facts and data to back that claim up? :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnneD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #16
27. ITA....
I argued against the law to my reps for the reasons you quoted. Most bankruptcies are due to divorce, medical, or job loss. I hope this bites them in the butt-they were so short sighted on this. The upping of the minimum payment will help get these people out debt sooner. I hope America kicks the CC habit. I have been CC free for 3 years now and will never go back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
23. Get ready for more of the same...
As per p. 2 of the article:

Credit-counseling executives expect the number of bankruptcy filings to pick up in the next few months, the traditional peak period for credit counseling, as families cope with increased energy prices, higher interest rates and a new federally mandated policy that boosts the minimum amount due on monthly credit card bills.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-17-06 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
26. Repayment plans- LOL
When you're unemployed or looking down the barrel of a $40,000 medical bill or had to use credit cards at usurious rates of 25-30% a repayment plan's not much of an alternative.

Of course, anyone ho looked at the law knew this- but corruption in both parties is such that rationality takes a second seat to legalized bribery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC