• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Redefine Bankruptcy Laws

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am firm believer that we should reform our bankruptcy laws in this country. As it stands now, it takes 7 years for a bankruptcy to be erased from your credit. You're essentially blackballed. You can't get a loan to buy anything and you're shunned from most decent places to rent. In a lot of cases, it's also hard to get a job when they see that on your credit report.

I think we should lower the length of time that it stays on your record from 7 years to only 3 years.

I also think we should allow people to file bankruptcy and have all debts erased. As things stand right now, you can't file anymore like that. You have to still pay on your debts. And I also think once the 3 year period is over, you should be able to file again.

Why do I say this? Because for a lot of people, bankruptcy isn't their fault. They get into accidents or get sick that causes them to be laid off of work and then they get into mountains of medical bills and debt. I know the arguments of how people will abuse that but I just simply cannot turn my back on people that genuinely need help.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
For SOME people, it isn't their fault. For most, it is.
The study that was done that claimed over half of bankruptcies were due to high medical bills has been discredited. It is closer to 25%, and even then, most of those had bad spending habits.
I am almost 60, unemployed, and have $5000 deductible medical insurance for less than $150 per month, and that is beer/cigarette/video game money for a lot of people who claim they can't afford their own insurance. I just had a complete physical with lab tests, cost me $32 out of my pocket.
I wanted to get on my wife's insurance, but it would cost almost $10,000 per year, so I went with Blue Cross Blue SHield Plus.
I know about half a dozen people who over the last 10 years have filed at least once. Terrible spending habits is the reason, combined with losing jobs, quitting jobs before finding another, getting second mortgage on their house to buy a new truck, and boat, then the wife loses her job and his isn't enough to cover the bills, etc. etc. etc.
I blame the schools, partially, for not teaching the kids what to expect in the real world. Those who drop out should be forced to take a class, and pass a final exam, on what real life is when it comes to having to pay for your own bills instead of letting mom and dad do it.
A little pessimism goes a long way toward preparing for the so-called unforseen circumstances that put so many in a financial mess.
 

BWG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
4,373
Reaction score
1,602
Location
South Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
They just passed a bankruptcy 'reform' bill in April. You can read more about it here
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
UtahBill said:
For SOME people, it isn't their fault. For most, it is.
The study that was done that claimed over half of bankruptcies were due to high medical bills has been discredited. It is closer to 25%, and even then, most of those had bad spending habits.
I am almost 60, unemployed, and have $5000 deductible medical insurance for less than $150 per month, and that is beer/cigarette/video game money for a lot of people who claim they can't afford their own insurance. I just had a complete physical with lab tests, cost me $32 out of my pocket.
I wanted to get on my wife's insurance, but it would cost almost $10,000 per year, so I went with Blue Cross Blue SHield Plus.
I know about half a dozen people who over the last 10 years have filed at least once. Terrible spending habits is the reason, combined with losing jobs, quitting jobs before finding another, getting second mortgage on their house to buy a new truck, and boat, then the wife loses her job and his isn't enough to cover the bills, etc. etc. etc.
I blame the schools, partially, for not teaching the kids what to expect in the real world. Those who drop out should be forced to take a class, and pass a final exam, on what real life is when it comes to having to pay for your own bills instead of letting mom and dad do it.
A little pessimism goes a long way toward preparing for the so-called unforseen circumstances that put so many in a financial mess.
But what about people who are in mountains of medical bills but didn't have insurance in the first place?

And BWG, yes, I know they pass that reform law. But I was against it.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
People who cannot pay, don't pay. The new bankruptcy law does not preclude bankruptcy, it just says that those who CAN pay, MUST pay.
I know a guy who just closed down his business and filed, he owes probably a quarter million and some of that in unpaid taxes and social security for his employees. The government will get theirs, you can be sure of that. Whatever job he gets later on, he will lose part of it to paying off at least the part he owes Uncle Sam. But he knew over a year ago that his business was failing, and did nothing to reduce his extravagant life style. Most of his debt is to credit card companies.
When it comes to those with "mountains" of medical bills and no insurance, some negotiation should be done to reduce the amount being charged, as hospitals are notorious for overcharging individuals, even denying them the same discounts they would give insurance companies. There is plenty of blame to spread around, from those who won't buy their own insurance, to those who overcharge, and all points in between.
It isn't as bad as some public broadcasting pundits are telling us. And it is no excuse to continue to be lenient on those who live large on their credit cards.
Bankruptcy is for those who need it, not for those who take advantage of the system to have more than they could ever afford in the first place.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
The new US bankruptcy codex goes into effect on October 17. Under the new law, it will be extremely difficult for an individual to file for personal bankruptcy. You will not be able to file for many items such as credit card debt. Also, the new law increases the 'minimum payment due' on credit card bills from 2% to 4% of the outstanding balance. In effect, this will double your minimum monthly payment. I posted about the new bankruptcy laws here at DP in June, but not many took notice.

The new law is woefully favorable to creditors and lenders, and is actually the antithesis of 'compassionate conservatism'.


 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Tashah said:
The new US bankruptcy codex goes into effect on October 17. Under the new law, it will be extremely difficult for an individual to file for personal bankruptcy. You will not be able to file for many items such as credit card debt. Also, the new law increases the 'minimum payment due' on credit card bills from 2% to 4% of the outstanding balance. In effect, this will double your minimum monthly payment. I posted about the new bankruptcy laws here at DP in June, but not many took notice.

The new law is woefully favorable to creditors and lenders, and is actually the antithesis of 'compassionate conservatism'.


True, I think you're right.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
George_Washington said:
True, I think you're right.
On most issues like this, the pendulum is always swinging. It is most likely just now returning in the direction of common sense and logic, and away from the idea that we are all entitled to all we can afford to make the payments on as long as we remain gainfully employed and in good health.
Such unbridled optimism on our part as consumers is good for the overall economy, but often disastrous to our individual financial well-being.:mrgreen:
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
UtahBill said:
On most issues like this, the pendulum is always swinging. It is most likely just now returning in the direction of common sense and logic, and away from the idea that we are all entitled to all we can afford to make the payments on as long as we remain gainfully employed and in good health.
Such unbridled optimism on our part as consumers is good for the overall economy, but often disastrous to our individual financial well-being.:mrgreen:
People who deliberately over charge on credit cards should not be able to just have a bankruptcy whenever they want. BUT you're still not accounting for the normal, hard working people that just fall on hard times. What is so, "common sense" like about making broad laws like these and not taking into consideration everybody that it's going to affect? If someone cannot file bankruptcy more than wants than suppose that person is just unlucky or whatever and is in mountains of debt. What is he or she supposed to do in order to build wealth? It's extremely difficult in that situation.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
UtahBill said:
On most issues like this, the pendulum is always swinging. It is most likely just now returning in the direction of common sense and logic, and away from the idea that we are all entitled to all we can afford to make the payments on as long as we remain gainfully employed and in good health.
Such unbridled optimism on our part as consumers is good for the overall economy, but often disastrous to our individual financial well-being.
The core problem here is that the 'rules of the credit game' have quickly changed in midstream. There was only a six month grace period from when Bush signed the new bankruptcy codex until its implementation on October 17. This is hardly enough retrofit time for most Americans to reduce their credit debt to a reasonable and affordable level. Mark my words, within the next year a mindboggling number of middle-class Americans will find themselves tightly bound within a financial straightjacket. Suffice it to say, this expedited new bankruptcy codex is not my idea of common sense or logic. I believe this game used to be called loan-sharking.


 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
George_Washington said:
People who deliberately over charge on credit cards should not be able to just have a bankruptcy whenever they want. BUT you're still not accounting for the normal, hard working people that just fall on hard times. What is so, "common sense" like about making broad laws like these and not taking into consideration everybody that it's going to affect? If someone cannot file bankruptcy more than wants than suppose that person is just unlucky or whatever and is in mountains of debt. What is he or she supposed to do in order to build wealth? It's extremely difficult in that situation.
Build wealth? How ludicrous. The American dream was never about building wealth. And we can't all be wealthy, or else how do we measure wealth?
After 38 years of working, I lost my job and was forced into retirement, but I was prepared for it. First, my wife works, and will for one more year, and second, we decided when we got married that we would carry NO unnecessary debt. We don't have expensive clothing, eating, drinking, smoking habits, and never bought any of the big expensive toys that sit in so many people's yards, like boats, motorhomes, etc. When we wanted one, we rented it.
So one job for the 2 of us is sufficient, not to mention the IRA funds that we can tap into soon. I do get about $450 per month for the retirement, whoop-de-do. But the key part is--- no unnecessary debt. We made payments on our house, and one good car, the second car being of such lowly status that it could be had for very little money. We finally got to the point that we had a paid for house, and could afford to pay cash (plus trade-in) for NEW vehicles, but we keep them forever. And there are no luxury cars, SUV's or Trucks in our driveway. We even had enough money, when the time came, to pay for our kids to go to college. They are getting a better start in life than their parents.
After doing everything right, we are still not wealthy. We may be able to claim millionaire status in about 10 years, barring another mess on Wall Street or severe depreciation in the real estate market.
Why should I, and others like me, who only got the one chance to build wealth, help pay for people who lack common sense, or good judgement? Nope, I don't want to have to pay higher interest rates, higher taxes, etc. to support those who are too stupid to learn after filing once, and end up wanting to file a second time. The pendulum is swinging in the direction of conservative personal finances, and it is now up to the public to adapt. I suspect it will be painful for some, but such is life, real life anyway.....:roll:
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
UtahBill said:
The pendulum is swinging in the direction of conservative personal finances
Then perhaps someone should notify the Treasury Department of this conservative fiscal trend. Every single day the US Treasury borrows millions of dollars from Japan, China, and Korea to finance its ballooning expenditures and increasing debt. Hardly an exemplar of fiscal responsibility.


 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Tashah said:
Then perhaps someone should notify the Treasury Department of this conservative fiscal trend. Every single day the US Treasury borrows millions of dollars from Japan, China, and Korea to finance its ballooning expenditures and increasing debt. Hardly an exemplar of fiscal responsibility.


Amen, Sister Tashah, and that bothers me a lot. At some time, our spendaholic chickens are going to come home to roost, and if anyone out there thinks that things are bad now, just wait those nations start calling in that debt.
Maybe they are now, maybe that is why we are sending so many jobs overseas?
Me, paranoid? Always....
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
UtahBill said:
Build wealth? How ludicrous. The American dream was never about building wealth. And we can't all be wealthy, or else how do we measure wealth?
After 38 years of working, I lost my job and was forced into retirement, but I was prepared for it. First, my wife works, and will for one more year, and second, we decided when we got married that we would carry NO unnecessary debt. We don't have expensive clothing, eating, drinking, smoking habits, and never bought any of the big expensive toys that sit in so many people's yards, like boats, motorhomes, etc. When we wanted one, we rented it.
So one job for the 2 of us is sufficient, not to mention the IRA funds that we can tap into soon. I do get about $450 per month for the retirement, whoop-de-do. But the key part is--- no unnecessary debt. We made payments on our house, and one good car, the second car being of such lowly status that it could be had for very little money. We finally got to the point that we had a paid for house, and could afford to pay cash (plus trade-in) for NEW vehicles, but we keep them forever. And there are no luxury cars, SUV's or Trucks in our driveway. We even had enough money, when the time came, to pay for our kids to go to college. They are getting a better start in life than their parents.
After doing everything right, we are still not wealthy. We may be able to claim millionaire status in about 10 years, barring another mess on Wall Street or severe depreciation in the real estate market.
Why should I, and others like me, who only got the one chance to build wealth, help pay for people who lack common sense, or good judgement? Nope, I don't want to have to pay higher interest rates, higher taxes, etc. to support those who are too stupid to learn after filing once, and end up wanting to file a second time. The pendulum is swinging in the direction of conservative personal finances, and it is now up to the public to adapt. I suspect it will be painful for some, but such is life, real life anyway.....:roll:
Ludicrous?? OF COURSE the American dream is to build wealth. If not, than what is it? We live in a free enterprise system so that we can buy what we want, invest in the financial commodities that want to, hence BUILD WEALTH. What does you not ever becoming a millionare have to do with anything? According to your, "all for myself" theory, that's nobody's fault but your own. Maybe you just didn't work hard enough. Anyway, we're talking about helping out your fellow man, which in turn will help strengthen the nation. Now I agree that we should keep taxes low, I hate to see high taxes. But there are just certain things that we all should contribute to. This bankruptcy reform law is simply unsuitable for middle classed and lower middle classed people.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
George_Washington said:
Ludicrous?? OF COURSE the American dream is to build wealth. If not, than what is it? We live in a free enterprise system so that we can buy what we want, invest in the financial commodities that want to, hence BUILD WEALTH. What does you not ever becoming a millionare have to do with anything? According to your, "all for myself" theory, that's nobody's fault but your own. Maybe you just didn't work hard enough. Anyway, we're talking about helping out your fellow man, which in turn will help strengthen the nation. Now I agree that we should keep taxes low, I hate to see high taxes. But there are just certain things that we all should contribute to. This bankruptcy reform law is simply unsuitable for middle classed and lower middle classed people.
Wealth was never a part of the American dream, just having your own plot of land and a house instead of a slum shack is the dream. I suspect you don't understand what wealth is. It means not having to work a regular job, for someone else, or being able to live off your accumulated asssets. Considering where my wife and I both started, namely poor, we have done very well.

Yes, we should be able to buy what we want, AS LONG AS WE CAN AFFORD IT, just being able to make a minimal payment for 20 years or so is not included under the "affording it" rule.

What "all for myself" theory are you talking about? You didn't get that from my posts. I do help out my fellow man, IF he is trying to help himself. Or should I go and personally help bail out the stupid, the wild spender, those who waste their money on luxuries, etc.? If so, why? Assistance, or charity, is for those who truly need and deserve it, not for those who are too stupid or lazy to provide for themselves and too self centered to provide for their family.
I consider myself wealthy because I have no needs, present or projected, that I have not planned for, or so I hope. I don't need the ego inflating luxury homes, cars, etc.
What do you consider wealthy?
America wants to know......:smile:
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
the poorest man in our country is wealthier than 80% of the world.






Says something doesn't it...
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
128shot said:
the poorest man in our country is wealthier than 80% of the world.
Says something doesn't it...
Yes, and give one of those from the rest of the world the chance to come here and in 1 or 2 genrations he or his children will be wealthier than the average American who was born here.
And he will likely do it without ever getting deep in debt, or filing for bankruptcy.
A lot of them seem to have this archaic thing called "work ethic" and they combine that with living conservatively, and next thing you know, they are quite well off.:shock:
 

BWG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
4,373
Reaction score
1,602
Location
South Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There were amendments proposed to the recently passed bankruptcy bill, but they were rebuffed.

Some major ones were:

an amendment that would have allowed senior citizens to protect $75,000 of the value of their homes during bankruptcy proceedings.

an amendment focused on helping people who are forced into bankruptcy due to major medical expenses.

an amendment that would have protected $150,000 of the value of patients' homes from being seized to pay creditors.

an amendment to force credit card companies to disclose how long it would take a consumer to pay off his bill making minimum monthly payments, and what the interest rate would be.

an amendment that would have exempted veterans from the most onerous provisions of the bill and prevented creditors from recovering debts from military personnel if the loans had annual percentage rates higher than 36%.


Now I'm a firm believer in taking care of your own personal obligations. You want it, You pay for it.

However, if you incur an unexpected catastrophe, I think you need and should get help. Should you or a family member contract a medical condition or have a debilitating accident that runs into the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars, I don't think you should lose everything (like your home) you have worked hard to acquire.

On another note, I don't think bankruptcy should allow you to just completely forget about your debt. I think you should have to pay 'something', simply because you owe it. By that I mean, if you can afford to pay $100 a month, that's what you should be ordered to pay. If you can only afford to pay $5 a month, you should pay that, for no other reason but to remind you of that debt. I don't think these payments should be so high that they would not allow you to continue to live a 'normal' life, such as buy a decent automobile, make modest improvements to your home, take a moderate vacation, etc.

This new bill makes it harder than it should, for the average person with problems beyond their control, to keep from losing everything that they have faithfully worked for.
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
UtahBill said:
Yes, and give one of those from the rest of the world the chance to come here and in 1 or 2 genrations he or his children will be wealthier than the average American who was born here.
And he will likely do it without ever getting deep in debt, or filing for bankruptcy.
A lot of them seem to have this archaic thing called "work ethic" and they combine that with living conservatively, and next thing you know, they are quite well off.:shock:

yeah, thats often true. Look at even Americanized Japanese families.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
BWG said:
Now I'm a firm believer in taking care of your own personal obligations. You want it, You pay for it.
However, if you incur an unexpected catastrophe, I think you need and should get help. Should you or a family member contract a medical condition or have a debilitating accident that runs into the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars, I don't think you should lose everything (like your home) you have worked hard to acquire.
This new bill makes it harder than it should, for the average person with problems beyond their control, to keep from losing everything that they have faithfully worked for.
I agree, and that is why I am for our great and wonderful government providing low cost catastrophic health insurance for just those situations.
I say low cost, but higher cost for those who exhibit risky behavior. Those who want to jump out of perfectly good airplanes, free fall for several thousand feet, then ride a flimsy bit of silk to the ground should pay higher premiums. Hey, call me a liberal if you like, but I am for it.
Universal and comprehensive free cradle to grave insurance, tho, I am against. There are too many of us who will take all they can get of anything that is free, thus blocking access to medical services for those who are more in need.
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
UtahBill said:
Wealth was never a part of the American dream, just having your own plot of land and a house instead of a slum shack is the dream. I suspect you don't understand what wealth is. It means not having to work a regular job, for someone else, or being able to live off your accumulated asssets. Considering where my wife and I both started, namely poor, we have done very well.
It means all of that but it also means being able to rebound if you hit a major stump. My point that you fail to grasp is that under this proposed bankruptcy, is that some people might not be able to rebound to the point where they are as well off as you or just to the point where they can get out of debt.

Yes, we should be able to buy what we want, AS LONG AS WE CAN AFFORD IT, just being able to make a minimal payment for 20 years or so is not included under the "affording it" rule.
Agreed.

What "all for myself" theory are you talking about? You didn't get that from my posts. I do help out my fellow man, IF he is trying to help himself. Or should I go and personally help bail out the stupid, the wild spender, those who waste their money on luxuries, etc.? If so, why? Assistance, or charity, is for those who truly need and deserve it, not for those who are too stupid or lazy to provide for themselves and too self centered to provide for their family.
I consider myself wealthy because I have no needs, present or projected, that I have not planned for, or so I hope. I don't need the ego inflating luxury homes, cars, etc.
What do you consider wealthy?
America wants to know......:smile:
Again, I'm not talking about the ones who just blow money right and left. I'm talking about cases where people are just unfortunate. I myself have never filed bankruptcy but I've known people who have and none of them have been these stereotypical spendaholics.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,321
Reaction score
13,553
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Tashah said:
The core problem here is that the 'rules of the credit game' have quickly changed in midstream. There was only a six month grace period from when Bush signed the new bankruptcy codex until its implementation on October 17. This is hardly enough retrofit time for most Americans to reduce their credit debt to a reasonable and affordable level. Mark my words, within the next year a mindboggling number of middle-class Americans will find themselves tightly bound within a financial straightjacket. Suffice it to say, this expedited new bankruptcy codex is not my idea of common sense or logic. I believe this game used to be called loan-sharking.
If you do not try to live above your means it’s not an issue. My wife and I did not need any time to “retrofit” our credit card debt because we don’t have ridiculous amounts of credit card debt. If we did, it would probably be our own fault. The culture of greed in America is the real problem. Everyone always seems to have to have a bigger house, a nice car, big trips, etc. You should not live with a credit debt that is not a reasonable and affordable level.
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Tashah said:
The new US bankruptcy codex goes into effect on October 17. Under the new law, it will be extremely difficult for an individual to file for personal bankruptcy. You will not be able to file for many items such as credit card debt. Also, the new law increases the 'minimum payment due' on credit card bills from 2% to 4% of the outstanding balance. In effect, this will double your minimum monthly payment. I posted about the new bankruptcy laws here at DP in June, but not many took notice.

The new law is woefully favorable to creditors and lenders, and is actually the antithesis of 'compassionate conservatism'.


Apparently ,they are expecting an influx of applicants, and want to make sure all the mid class incomes turn into 4% instead of 2%.
how do americans take it with a grin
When the middle class falls, on top of being destitute ,they will have to pay more to be poor.
A little tax might help lift 1/3 of America out of the third world it's in.
I suppose ,morning for the poor, is hardly worth the effort.
After all ,they are the ones that shop at walmart . which is big part of why
they have no jobs.
 
Last edited:

MiamiFlorida

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
434
Reaction score
1
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
George_Washington said:
I am firm believer that we should reform our bankruptcy laws in this country. As it stands now, it takes 7 years for a bankruptcy to be erased from your credit. You're essentially blackballed. You can't get a loan to buy anything and you're shunned from most decent places to rent. In a lot of cases, it's also hard to get a job when they see that on your credit report.

I think we should lower the length of time that it stays on your record from 7 years to only 3 years.

I also think we should allow people to file bankruptcy and have all debts erased. As things stand right now, you can't file anymore like that. You have to still pay on your debts. And I also think once the 3 year period is over, you should be able to file again.

Why do I say this? Because for a lot of people, bankruptcy isn't their fault. They get into accidents or get sick that causes them to be laid off of work and then they get into mountains of medical bills and debt. I know the arguments of how people will abuse that but I just simply cannot turn my back on people that genuinely need help.
Takes 10 years for bankruptcy to be erased from your credit.
 
Top Bottom