Activism Discussion: Senate Republicans Stick It To The Elderly, AGAIN!

Senate Republicans Stick It To The Elderly, AGAIN!
Posts: 22

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Barney Lyon
2005-03-02 18:14:42 EST
In Bush's first term, Republicans overhauled bankruptcy laws so that
fewer citizens could get protection under bankruptcy laws.

With Bush spending the nation into oblivion (interest rates are going
to go through the roof) leaving the average American to pick up the
tab, Republicans are pulling the noose tighter around ordinary
Americans' necks:

Bankruptcy break for seniors rejected
Senate plows ahead with bill to overhaul bankruptcy code
By William L. Watts, MarketWatch
March 2, 2005

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The Senate on Wednesday turned back an
effort by Democrats to shield senior citizens from a proposed revamp of
the bankruptcy code that would require more filers to pay off a chunk
of their debts.

The Senate voted 59-40, largely along party lines, to reject an
amendment that would have granted homestead exemptions that would have
let seniors keep their homes when they file for bankruptcy.

Republicans said the proposed bill already offered protections for the
elderly and that homestead exemptions were an issue for individual
states. Democrats said the amendment, sponsored by Sen. Russ Feingold,
D-Wis., would have provided needed protection to the elderly.

The bankruptcy bill would significantly alter the bankruptcy code.
Under a new means test, a consumer with income above the median level
for his state would possibly be required to file under Chapter 13,
which requires repayment of debts, rather than Chapter 7, which allows
the cancellation of debts after the forfeiture of some assets.

Democrats plan a number of amendments to change the wide-ranging bill.
On Tuesday, the Senate turned back a Democratic measure that would have
shielded active-duty military personnel from the proposed changes in
the law.

House Republican leaders have indicated they'll bring a bill to the
floor later this spring. Banks, credit-card issuers, retailers and auto
firms have backed the measure.

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B918D3A95-F9F1-45BC-89D0-74980384B784%7D&siteid=google&dist=google


Sanders Kaufman
2005-03-02 18:49:23 EST
"Barney Lyon" <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109805282.324906.175640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Under a new means test, a consumer with income above the median level
> for his state would possibly be required to file under Chapter 13,
> which requires repayment of debts, rather than Chapter 7, which allows
> the cancellation of debts after the forfeiture of some assets.

Wow! That's an awfully arbitrary way to decide who can file for bankruptcy.
Instead of basing it on ability to pay, it bases it on how your neighbors
are doing.


> Democrats plan a number of amendments to change the wide-ranging bill.
> On Tuesday, the Senate turned back a Democratic measure that would have
> shielded active-duty military personnel from the proposed changes in
> the law.

Wow.
So, according to the NeoCons, a soldier who is forced to fight in Iraq
SHOULD come back to find his house and property gone.



Barney Lyon
2005-03-02 21:31:50 EST
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> "Barney Lyon" <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1109805282.324906.175640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Under a new means test, a consumer with income above the median
level
> > for his state would possibly be required to file under Chapter 13,
> > which requires repayment of debts, rather than Chapter 7, which
allows
> > the cancellation of debts after the forfeiture of some assets.
>
> Wow! That's an awfully arbitrary way to decide who can file for
bankruptcy.
> Instead of basing it on ability to pay, it bases it on how your
neighbors
> are doing.
>
>
> > Democrats plan a number of amendments to change the wide-ranging
bill.
> > On Tuesday, the Senate turned back a Democratic measure that would
have
> > shielded active-duty military personnel from the proposed changes
in
> > the law.
>
> Wow.
> So, according to the NeoCons, a soldier who is forced to fight in
Iraq
> SHOULD come back to find his house and property gone.

Yes. All the while sheltering the homes of the rich through a scheme.
The elderly, who are wiped out financially through medical bills, will
be denied homestead exemption and will wind up homeless.

Come the revolution, the sponsor of the bill, Republican Senator
Charles Grassley, should be the first run out of town and directly into
prison.

Loophole draws fire in bankruptcy debate
By Gretchen Morgenson
The New York Times
Thursday, March 3, 2005


U.S. reform would let rich protect assets
Bankruptcy legislation being debated by the U.S. Senate is designed
to make it harder for people to walk away from their credit card and
other debts. But legal experts say the proposed law leaves open an
increasingly popular loophole that lets wealthy people protect
substantial assets from creditors even after filing for bankruptcy.

The loophole involves the use of so-called asset protection trusts.

For years, wealthy people looking to keep their money out of the reach
of domestic creditors have set up these trusts offshore. But since
1997, lawmakers in five states - Alaska, Delaware, Nevada, Rhode Island
and Utah - have passed legislation exempting assets held domestically
in such trusts from the federal bankruptcy code. People who want to
establish one of these trusts do not have to reside in any of the five
states; they need only set it up through an institution located there.

"If the bankruptcy legislation currently being rushed through the
Senate gets enacted, debtors won't need to buy houses in Florida or
Texas to keep their millions," said Elena Marty-Nelson, a law professor
at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, referring
to generous homestead exemptions in those states.

"The millionaire's loophole that is the result of these trusts needs to
be closed."

In Washington on Tuesday, Republicans in the Senate beat back the first
in a series of Democratic amendments that have been aimed at softening
the effects of the bankruptcy bill on military personnel, and the
majority leader of the House vowed to get quick approval of the bill if
the Senate did not significantly alter it.

"We will grab hold of it just like we did class action if it is a good
and clean bankruptcy reform bill," said Representative Tom DeLay,
Republican of Texas, referring to the quick action the House took last
month on a measure limiting class-action lawsuits.

The Senate bill is favored by banks, credit card companies and
retailers who say it is too easy for consumers to erase their debts
through bankruptcy.

It is almost identical to previous versions that have been introduced
in Congress, unsuccessfully, since 1998. Perhaps because the current
bill was written so long ago, some legal experts say, it does not
address the new state laws that have allowed asset protection trusts to
flourish.

"This is just a way for rich folks to be able to slip through the noose
on bankruptcy, and, of course, the double irony here is that the
proponents of this bill keep pressing it as designed to eliminate
abuse," Elizabeth Warren, a law professor at Harvard Law School, said.

"Yet when provisions that permit real abuse by rich people are pointed
out, the bill's proponents look the other way."

Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, is the main sponsor of
the bankruptcy bill. His press secretary, Beth Levine, said the
senator's staff was unaware of the trusts and the loophole for the
wealthy that they represented. "The senator is always open to
suggestions for closing these loopholes," she said.

Money held in asset protection trusts can elude creditors because
federal bankruptcy law exempts assets governed by "applicable
nonbankruptcy law."

Designed to preserve a person's rights to property under state law, the
exemption makes it difficult for creditors to get hold of assets that
they would not be able to seize through a nonbankruptcy proceeding in
state court.

Asset protection trusts have become increasingly popular in recent
years among physicians, who fear large medical malpractice awards, and
corporate executives, whose assets are at greater peril now because of
new laws.

The Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, for example, requires chief executives
and chief financial officers to certify that their companies' financial
statements are accurate; anyone who knowingly certifies false numbers
can be fined up to $5 million.

In addition, under Sarbanes-Oxley, executives may have to reimburse
their companies for bonuses or other incentive compensation they have
received if their firm's financial reports have to be restated in later
years.

"Given all the notoriety of what we're seeing today, from HealthSouth
to WorldCom, there is probably more of an impetus for executives to
consider going this route," said Scott Blakeley, a lawyer at Blakeley &
Blakeley in Irvine, California.

"And yet in the bankruptcy bill, this topic is not touched."

While it is difficult to quantify how much money is sitting in domestic
asset protection trusts, their popularity is undeniable, bankruptcy
experts said. "I've heard figures for foreign asset protection trusts
and those probably are in the billions," Adam Hirsch, a law professor
at Florida State University, said. "I haven't seen any figures for
domestic asset protection trusts, but they could very well be the
same."

Current U.S. bankruptcy law protects assets held in a type of trust,
known as a spendthrift trust, traditionally set up by one family member
to benefit another. But current law does not protect the assets of
people who set up spendthrift trusts to benefit themselves.

And the law limits the purposes of the trusts that qualify for
exemption. Retirement planning or paying for education are two approved
purposes for such trusts.

By contrast, domestic asset protection trusts can be set up by the same
people who plan to benefit from them. In addition, there are no caps on
the dollar amount of assets they can hold and no restrictions on their
purpose, Marty-Nelson said. One limitation is that the trusts cannot be
set up by people who are already insolvent.

The states that allow these trusts do so to attract the significant
money management and trustee fees that accompany them, Hirsch said.

"It's what is known in the parlance of legal policy analysis as a race
to the bottom," he said.

The authors of the Delaware law, for example, noted when it was passed
in 1997 that it was meant to "maintain Delaware's role as the most
favored jurisdiction for the establishment of trusts."

In some ways, asset protection trusts are similar to the homestead
exemption that keeps homes in Florida, Texas and other states out of
the reach of creditors. But the bankruptcy law now under consideration
limits this exemption to $125,000 for those who purchased the home
within 40 months of their bankruptcy filing or for those who have
committed securities fraud.

Marty-Nelson said the bankruptcy bill should at least apply such a cap
to domestic asset protection trusts. Better yet, she said, the bill
should exclude these trusts from the federal exemption altogether.

"Congress can and should close this huge loophole," she said.


Harold Burton
2005-03-02 22:05:06 EST
In article <1109805282.324906.175640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Barney Lyon" <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In Bush's first term, Republicans overhauled bankruptcy laws so that
> fewer citizens could get protection under bankruptcy laws.



And you're problem with that is? Why should we make it easy for
deadbeats to welch on their debts?

--
Hal

Mapanari
2005-03-02 22:06:35 EST
"Barney Lyon" <fountaingrove@hotmail.com>
wrotenews:1109805282.324906.175640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> In Bush's first term, Republicans overhauled bankruptcy laws so that
> fewer citizens could get protection under bankruptcy laws.

Silly puddy tat...I'm not going to read anymore of this because from the
first sentence you obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
The bankruptcy "reform" i.e. "Big business Fucking you and you children
forever Act" has not been passed and it's been stalled for about 5 years.

Thank god the democrats can stop some crazy bullshit like this with their
votes instead of pandering to illegals, blacks and lazy stupid people all the
time.

--
---Mapanari---

Scratch
2005-03-02 23:08:23 EST
Harold Burton wrote:
> In article <1109805282.324906.175640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Barney Lyon" <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In Bush's first term, Republicans overhauled bankruptcy laws so that
>>fewer citizens could get protection under bankruptcy laws.
>
>
>
>
> And you're problem with that is? Why should we make it easy for
> deadbeats to welch on their debts?
>


I couldn't believe it but today I heard you can file banko every 6
years. You would think lawyers made that law if so wonder why :)


Buck
2005-03-02 23:18:11 EST
Fuck Off!!

PLONK!!


"Sanders Kaufman" <usenet@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:7isVd.60325$iC4.2617@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> "Barney Lyon" <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1109805282.324906.175640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Under a new means test, a consumer with income above the median level
> > for his state would possibly be required to file under Chapter 13,
> > which requires repayment of debts, rather than Chapter 7, which allows
> > the cancellation of debts after the forfeiture of some assets.
>
> Wow! That's an awfully arbitrary way to decide who can file for
bankruptcy.
> Instead of basing it on ability to pay, it bases it on how your neighbors
> are doing.
>
>
> > Democrats plan a number of amendments to change the wide-ranging bill.
> > On Tuesday, the Senate turned back a Democratic measure that would have
> > shielded active-duty military personnel from the proposed changes in
> > the law.
>
> Wow.
> So, according to the NeoCons, a soldier who is forced to fight in Iraq
> SHOULD come back to find his house and property gone.
>
>



Sanders Kaufman
2005-03-02 23:22:47 EST
"Harold Burton" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nospam-5AF98A.22050602032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> "Barney Lyon" <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> In Bush's first term, Republicans overhauled bankruptcy laws so that
>> fewer citizens could get protection under bankruptcy laws.

> And you're problem with that is? Why should we make it easy for
> deadbeats to welch on their debts?

That depends on your definitions of "deadbeat" and "welch".
Since the NeoCons seized power - more and more Americans are going bankrupt
and dying in debt-laden poverty.




Scratch
2005-03-02 23:22:57 EST
Buck wrote:
> Fuck Off!!
>
> PLONK!!
>
>
> "Sanders Kaufman" <usenet@kaufman.net> wrote in message
> news:7isVd.60325$iC4.2617@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>"Barney Lyon" <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1109805282.324906.175640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>Under a new means test, a consumer with income above the median level
>>>for his state would possibly be required to file under Chapter 13,
>>>which requires repayment of debts, rather than Chapter 7, which allows
>>>the cancellation of debts after the forfeiture of some assets.
>>
>>Wow! That's an awfully arbitrary way to decide who can file for
>
> bankruptcy.
>
>>Instead of basing it on ability to pay, it bases it on how your neighbors
>>are doing.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Democrats plan a number of amendments to change the wide-ranging bill.
>>>On Tuesday, the Senate turned back a Democratic measure that would have
>>>shielded active-duty military personnel from the proposed changes in
>>>the law.
>>
>>Wow.
>>So, according to the NeoCons, a soldier who is forced to fight in Iraq
>>SHOULD come back to find his house and property gone.
>>


Kaufman has been PLONKED so many times he doesn't even use Vaseline
anymore :)


Harold Burton
2005-03-03 05:56:58 EST
In article <riwVd.60384$iC4.26697@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
"Sanders Kaufman" <usenet@kaufman.net> wrote:

> "Harold Burton" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:nospam-5AF98A.22050602032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > "Barney Lyon" <fountaingrove@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> In Bush's first term, Republicans overhauled bankruptcy laws so that
> >> fewer citizens could get protection under bankruptcy laws.
>
> > And you're problem with that is? Why should we make it easy for
> > deadbeats to welch on their debts?
>
> That depends on your definitions of "deadbeat" and "welch"...


...and what the definition of "is" is.

--
Hal
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron