George_Washington
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,962
- Reaction score
- 0
- 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.
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'.
George_Washington said:True, I think you're right.
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:
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 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.
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?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.
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 said:The pendulum is swinging in the direction of conservative personal finances
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.
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:
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.
128shot said:the poorest man in our country is wealthier than 80% of the world.
Says something doesn't it...
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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'.
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.
MiamiFlorida said:Takes 10 years for bankruptcy to be erased from your credit.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?