Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
When I graduated law school, I opened my own office, and handled whoever walked in. I will attest that the "little people" are a whole fucking lot dumber than you think.

Well that's a gene pool problem in Minnesota.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm too lazy to cut and paste between threads, so I'm just going to spew here. If I didn't respond to your post, feel free to let me know.

To Bilmore: I'm surprised at you - since when do you you look down from your high post and think of all the little people that need protection. It doesn't take a law school degree to be able to manage debt or to realize that a 30% interest rate is very high. Some of the best business people I know barely graduated high school. This isn't a question of brains. The "little people" are a lot smarter than you think. It's a question or responsibility.

I don't think there should be interest rate caps.

To Fringey: Of course they have to disclose interest rates. The interest rate is a material term, the absense of which would make the contract unenforceable.

To Wonk: I view the G's roll in banking much like I do in securities. It really is not necessary because a private entity could step in (see, e.g., Nasdaq and NYSE), but all in all, it probably makes the system more efficient, so I'm OK with it.

So, do you believe that it should only be the peasants who should remain saddled with debt and bear responsibility, or would you agree that if bankruptcy is to be restricted for consumers, it should be similarly restricted for companies like Chrysler, WorldCom, Texaco, Enron, etc.?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
So, do you believe that it should only be the peasants who should remain saddled with debt and bear responsibility, or would you agree that if bankruptcy is to be restricted for consumers, it should be similarly restricted for companies like Chrysler, WorldCom, Texaco, Enron, etc.?

I'm not sure I can answer this because I haven't read the bill and don't know its contents. I was only responding to the personal responsibility part. I assume the bill makes it harder to file? How so?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
In the last thread Shape Shifter stated:

"Unlike spanky, who knew Orwell."

It has become clear to me that Wonk, Fringy, Shape Shifter and others think that I am arrogant, name dropping blowhard. Clearly they think I don't know what I am talking about on any of these subjects and that I am mainly here just to show of my connections and past experiences.

Well to reinforce this impression I have posted, with permission of a moderator, an attachment. Sometime ago I received a phone call on my cell phone while I was in Costco choosing among crates of cereal. The ID of the phone call was blocked so I did not answer it. When I listened to the voice mail it turned out to be someone thanking me and my organization for our endorsement.

Here is the link. Check it out (it is actually pretty funny).

www.lawtalkers.com/arnold.mp4

I don't think you are an arrogant, name-dropping blowhard. I just think you are a reactionary, fuck-them-if they-ain't rich-like-me, stuck-in-the-Cold-War republican.

Other than that, from all reports, you're a nice guy, and I hope to have you join me for drinks next time I get out to the Left Coast.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
Other than that, from all reports, you're a nice guy....

Let's not go too far,

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not sure I can answer this because I haven't read the bill and don't know its contents. I was only responding to the personal responsibility part. I assume the bill makes it harder to file? How so?

It places limits on who can file for chapter 7. If you have the ability to pay a certain amount over time, you are forced to file a ch. 13. It also makes more debt non-dischargeable in other ways. Incidentally, it does nothing to limit the ability of corporations to file for a ch. 11 reorganization, screw their shareholders, pensioners, and employees, then walk out of court with a nice clean balance sheet.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not sure I can answer this because I haven't read the bill and don't know its contents. I was only responding to the personal responsibility part. I assume the bill makes it harder to file? How so?

If the bill makes it harder to file, isn't that a giveaway to credit-card companies, which lent money under one set of background assumptions and have now had those rules changed? And if we're going to assume people are rational -- your assumption, I think -- shouldn't we assume that they understood their bankruptcy options when they signed up for credit cards, and now are having the rug pulled out from under them?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Via &c., the Wall Street Journal suggests (subscription only) that the bankruptcy bill may actually increase the number of bankruptcies by lessening the incentives to lend to people who are bad risks.

• Some bankruptcy economists theorize that there's an inverse relationship between strong consumer-protection laws and bankruptcy filings. In states where it's harder for lenders to get judgments against consumers, bankruptcies might be lower because lenders are pickier about who gets credit. In states that make it easy for creditors to repossess property, bankruptcies might be higher because more consumers are extended credit.
  
  That, the economists say, might explain why many Southern states--known for the creditor-friendly laws--have higher bankruptcy rates. Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee provide a wide range of prejudgments, creditor remedies, attachments, garnishments and wage assignments with limited or no litigation, Mr. Gerdano says.

Gerdano is the executive director of the American Bankruptcy Institute, a Washington group composed of bankruptcy judges, and accountants and lawyers who represent both borrowers and lenders.

Links here.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It places limits on who can file for chapter 7. If you have the ability to pay a certain amount over time, you are forced to file a ch. 13. It also makes more debt non-dischargeable in other ways. Incidentally, it does nothing to limit the ability of corporations to file for a ch. 11 reorganization, screw their shareholders, pensioners, and employees, then walk out of court with a nice clean balance sheet.

Credit card companies don't care about corporate bankruptcy.

Club, it is estimated that people filing for bankruptcy will have to pay more like $800 up front for filing and that many people will have to go through two proceedings (fail at 13, go to 7) -- with the associated transaction costs -- under the new system. They are required to pay for mandatory credit counseling (or, someone will have to fund this, but the bill does not call for funding for credit counseling for debtors). It does not, at least last time I heard, end the incredibly generous homestead exemptions in states like FL and TX which allow people who really do have resources to shield properties worth hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars.

I honestly don't see why credit card companies don't just build the bankruptcy laws into their algorithms. Or, why they don't use what they know more effectively, and just not extend credit (or as much credit, or unsecured credit) to bad credit risks. It's not like they don't pretty much have access to everyone's entire fucking financial history. Instead, they are lobbying for what amounts to increased regulation of the bankruptcy proceedings but apparently are pretty successfully selling it to chumps like you as "increasing personal responsibility."

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It places limits on who can file for chapter 7. If you have the ability to pay a certain amount over time, you are forced to file a ch. 13. It also makes more debt non-dischargeable in other ways. Incidentally, it does nothing to limit the ability of corporations to file for a ch. 11 reorganization, screw their shareholders, pensioners, and employees, then walk out of court with a nice clean balance sheet.

But thankfully, it continues to allow one to sock away tons-o-bux in opulent homes and then shelters that asset from creditors. Similarly, if one's assets reach that critical mass at which expensive legal help becomes cost-effective, one can easily set up a sheltered trust, fund it with as much as you want, declare BK, and continue to exercise complete discretion and control over the trust.

It's good to be king.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Via &c., the Wall Street Journal suggests (subscription only) that the bankruptcy bill may actually increase the number of bankruptcies by lessening the incentives to lend to people who are bad risks.

You mean increasing the incentives, right?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It places limits on who can file for chapter 7. If you have the ability to pay a certain amount over time, you are forced to file a ch. 13. It also makes more debt non-dischargeable in other ways. Incidentally, it does nothing to limit the ability of corporations to file for a ch. 11 reorganization, screw their shareholders, pensioners, and employees, then walk out of court with a nice clean balance sheet.

In addition, the Dems proferred amendments that would have amended the bill to exempt veterans, active-duty troops, senior citizens and families facing unexpected medical bills, but these were rejected.

I myself certainly don't give any credence to any reports that the votes on the amendments were accompanied by laughter, hoots and/or catcalls from the Republican side of the Senate.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
But thankfully, it continues to allow one to sock away tons-o-bux in opulent homes and then shelters that asset from creditors. Similarly, if one's assets reach that critical mass at which expensive legal help becomes cost-effective, one can easily set up a sheltered trust, fund it with as much as you want, declare BK, and continue to exercise complete discretion and control over the trust.

It's good to be king.

Apparently, there are solid gold fixtures in a lot of the homes in River Oaks due to the oil bust in the 80s and the ensuing desire to get as many assets into the homestead as possible.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
In addition, the Dems proferred amendments that would have amended the bill to exempt veterans, active-duty troops, senior citizens and families facing unexpected medical bills, but these were rejected.

I myself certainly don't give any credence to any reports that the votes on the amendments were accompanied by laughter, hoots and/or catcalls from the Republican side of the Senate.

This was one of the only bright chapters in the birth of this bill. Just what we need - let's start exempting our pet groups from provisions. I vote to exempt lawyers who wear flannel shirts. Hank wants to exempt old hippies. Ty says that Ward Churchill should be able to file 7 whenever he wants.

It would be better to simply set up a fair and workable solution for all, rather than to set up crap, and then vote to make people we like avoid the crap.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If the bill makes it harder to file, isn't that a giveaway to credit-card companies,

uh, yeah. What isn't a giveaway in washington these days? It's a bailout to bottom-feeding CC cos.

There will be a painful transition, and then ultimately a new equilibrium with the extension of even more credit to less creditworth people, who still are able to meet the requirements of the bill, and we'll go through this again.