Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I'll admit it - I'm short. Can you send a few Benjamins? God Bless. Have a nice day.

2. Hank, help a sista out?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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.

Club -- I find it remarkable that you can support policies which have the admitted effect of permitting large companies to (for want of a more sophisticated analogy) make a living by anally raping boatloads of people and then oppose disclosure requirements, etc. which would help some of the folks to see the big penis coming.

[I'm talking about -- for example, requiring the disclosure of the effect of only making minimum payments, etc.]

[ETA: (Since Gatti liked the analogy). And you're also supporting legislation which makes it harder for those people to disengage while bruised and bleeding, gather their torn clothes, and limp away, until after the large companies have achieved their full measure of satisfaction.]

I find it most remarkable that you justify this laissez-faire attitude with a philosophy of individual responsibility -- while seeming to find no corresponding need for any sort of enforceable corporate responsibility. (Talking about the policing effect of the "market" is nonsense -- the information and bargaining power are not even.)

It is most ironic that you deride efforts at consumer protection as being motivated by an inappropriate paternalism or condescension. It cold comfort to desparate people if the government refuses to help them -- or the law facilitates their screwing because: "We thought you were smart enough to figure it out yourself."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Um, so just what did you "do" for him, anyway? Procurement? Bagman?

I am still in therapy over that. I still trying to regain my self respect.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(for want of a more sophisticated analogy)

No, no. Sophistication aside, this analogy is apt.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
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.

I think that is a fair description

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Club -- I find it remarkable that you can support policies which have the admitted effect of permitting large companies to (for want of a more sophisticated analogy) make a living by anally raping boatloads of people and then oppose disclosure requirements, etc. which would help some of the folks to see the big penis coming.

[I'm talking about -- for example, requiring the disclosure of the effect of only making minimum payments, etc.]

[ETA: (Since Gatti liked the analogy). And you're also supporting legislation which makes it harder for those people to disengage while bruised and bleeding, gather their torn clothes, and limp away, until after the large companies have achieved their full measure of satisfaction.]

I find it most remarkable that you justify this laissez-faire attitude with a philosophy of individual responsibility -- while seeming to find no corresponding need for any sort of enforceable corporate responsibility. (Talking about the policing effect of the "market" is nonsense -- the information and bargaining power are not even.)

It is most ironic that you deride efforts at consumer protection as being motivated by an inappropriate paternalism or condescension. It cold comfort to desparate people if the government refuses to help them -- or the law facilitates their screwing because: "We thought you were smart enough to figure it out yourself."

Concentual sex is not rape, no matter how rough it is.

No one is forcing borrowers to sign up for credit cards or borrow money beyond their means.

[Bucco Bruce]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
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.

It will restrict the exemption in certain circumstances -- if it passes and is signed by the president, one won't be able to get the full homstead protection (in bankruptcy) on the gazillion dollar house one bought the day before one filed one's petition.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No one is forcing borrowers to sign up for credit cards or borrow money beyond their means.

On this, I agree somewhat. People love to bitch and moan about the credit card issuers, but there are a lot of them in a competitive market. If you don't like their rates (or NFL team on the card), go to another one.

[Bucco Bruce]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Concentual sex is not rape, no matter how rough it is.

No one is forcing borrowers to sign up for credit cards or borrow money beyond their means.

And no one is forcing credit card companies to gamble on bad credit risk borrowers, either. But since sub-prime lending is already the most profitable niche in banking, and will only become more so after the bill is passed, I guess I will buy me some stock in one of those payday loan places. Pity the car title loan places all shut down around here.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I'm OK with not exempting any particular groups. One would think the number of our armed forces bravely risking their lives overseas who will be fucked by this bill would maybe make it less attractive, but apparently no.

So what do people think of the paycheck-advance lending places that have effective annualized interest rates of over 100% and are frequently clustered right outside of military bases (and in poor areas)?

My new career is buying homes before they go into forclosure. I find people who are upside down on their homes, then negotiate with the banks to reduce the loans so the people are not upside down anymore, and then buy the house. This way they can avoid forclosure, save their credit, and use the remainder of the proceeds for a down payment on a new home.

Most of the lower income people I work with are facing forclosure and bankruptcy because of divorce, medical problems, and job loss. I would say in 90% of the cases what has happend is beyond their control. I think the bankruptcy laws, as they are, are really important for these people, and lets them get a new start. The credit card company's know full well what they are getting into when they lend to these people and don't need any protection from these low income people. I am sorry but Citibank is not being abused by these people.

However, the system is really abused by the higher income people. I work with people all the time on higher end homes where they use the bankruptcy system to screw their creditors when they could pay them back. All sorts of creditors are getting screwed by wealthy people under this system. There has to be a way to change the system, but make a change where it only affects people in the higher income brackets.

I don't understand the bills going through, but from my experience I just think the people in the lower income brackets need to be exempted but the wealthier people need to be stopped from abusing the system just because they don't want to pay their bills.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No one is forcing borrowers to sign up for credit cards or borrow money beyond their means.

Why have bankruptcy at all, then? You don't get into bankruptcy unless you take on debt, right, so we should never allow it for anyone.

Seriously, the problem here as I see it is mainly one of motivation for the bill, as well as some of the particulars.

There are a number of possible balances one could strike as to how easy/hard bankruptcy should be. Obviously it can't be too easy, because then the lenders disappear. At the same time, it's somewhat desirable to allow it in certain circumstances, because otherwise people will be very reluctant to take on any debt (also a problem for lenders), because of the risk of massive debt problems (which, you need to realize, quite often come from unexpected events, such as massive medical bills or unemployment, not simply lots of HDTV purchases). Getting it right is difficult.

The problem here is that congress decided to alter that balance at the behest of cc cos., who had decided they needed to be stopped before they sinned again. They promoted easy consumer debt, but didn't like the fact that easy consumer debt means a number of uncreditworthy consumers got too much credit and, later, too much debt. So they're trying to bar the door after they screwed up. Maybe making bankruptcy harder is a good thing; maybe a bad thing--it's hard to say. What's easy to say is that the motivation for this bill has nothing to do with whether bankruptcy is too easy or too hard, just that it's too common as a result of cc overindulgence.

Meanwhile, making it worse, congress decided to except from the new restrictions, (for lack of a better word) the rich. Rich people are far better positioned to take advantage of the loopholes; meanwhile, the poor, who are much more likely to need the advantages of chapter 7, are stuck like a canoist in Deliverance. Donald Trump is a bigger abuser of bankruptcy than the average consumer--but what are the chances he won't be able to go through it just the same again?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
On this, I agree somewhat. People love to bitch and moan about the credit card issuers, but there are a lot of them in a competitive market. If you don't like their rates (or NFL team on the card), go to another one.

I don't think that works so well if you already have $5000 on your Raiders MBNA, don't like the fees they're jacking on you, and you want to flip to Cap. One. Cap One says you're already beyond your credit capabilities, so suck it.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Concentual sex is not rape, no matter how rough it is.

Yet, "Fuck 'em," while both a clear and handy ideological point of reference for one's political philosophy, carries dangers when articulated too clearly.

Kudos to you for your candor, at least. Would that your GOP representatives would be the same; instead, they're forced to rely on the cries of sympathy for the plight of mom and pop credit companies, and feigned outrage for phantom "bankruptcy queens" to make it through the day.

Me, I plan to buy stock in the nascent industry of private debtors' prisons which soon will be filled with boatloads of Americans whose genes you feel are deficient. Get in while you can, Club - the market for these will be hot.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap


Me, I plan to buy stock in the nascent industry of private debtors' prisons which soon will be filled with boatloads of Americans whose genes you feel are deficient. Get in while you can, Club - the market for these will be hot.

Personally, I'd just buy stock in Providian--they've clearly figured out how to market their "credit" products to those just barely able to afford them.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
. . . make a living by anally raping boatloads of people . . . .

You know, I understand that various people here know various permutations of groups of other people also here, and I understand that sometimes it's easy to forget, when you're talking over drinks, what's out and what's not, but, dammit, this was private.