bk law& lower rates!!!!!

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by peeper, Mar 17, 2001.

  1. peeper

    peeper Guest

    With the new bk law that Bush is sure to sign the banks should be forced to lower their interest rates on credit cards.Since credit card debt will be harder to get discharged banks can not use the old excuses why they charge such high interest.Also banks should soften their approval requirements,but they won't do neither.With his tax cut for the rich and his signing of the new bk law Bush has betrayed the people who put him in office.Politicians are only interested in what is best for them!
  2. AnnMarie

    AnnMarie Well-Known Member

    Re: bk law& lower rates!!!

    I feel strongly against bankruptcy. My parents did it when I was very young--I barely remember it but I DO remember having a wonderful Christmas because they "wouldn't be able to do that again" Why not? Because they couldn't go BK again for years. A relative just filed BK. He makes over 75k, has a wife and a child with him and an alimony payment of about 10% of his gross income, a car payment (1), but NO house payment at all. His wife does not work.
    It absolutely perplexes me. A couple years ago I could have easily filed BK and walked away but we chose not to. We both got extra jobs, got rid of a 2nd home and started in on really paying this stuff off.
    My situation isn't everyone's--I know that but I DO know that the American idea of credit and accountability has a lot to be desired.
    am (getting off soap box now)
  3. Jim

    Jim Well-Known Member

    I agree with Lizard

    I too voted for Bush but this BK bill is a big mistake. It only harms the kind of people who really need a fresh start. I view the Bk bill as a bipartisan gift to the credit card companies.
  4. ShyGuy

    ShyGuy Well-Known Member

    Re: I agree with Lizard

    Bush isn't betraying the people who put him in office -- he's rewarding them. This law is a nice big thank you for the quarter-million that MBNA give him. Look for more of the same as he rewards the oil industry and the rest of his donors.

    And the Dems are no better. Only about 15 of them were will to vote against the banks and their campaign contributions. Heck, Hillary voted for a law her husband vetoed.

    What's interesting is two first-year senators with banking or credit cards in their background -- Jon Corzine (Goldman-Sachs) and Mark Dayton (Dayton-Hudson) -- voted against this bill. Of course, they were both rich enough to finance their own campaigns.
  5. ShyGuy

    ShyGuy Well-Known Member

    Bush's hypocrisy

    The big thing we heard over and over again by those politicians that pushed this law through for their banker friends is that people were using the bankruptcy laws to take advantage of the system. We kept being told people who could afford to pay back their debts should do so.

    Yet what's the one thing Bush objects to in the Senate version of the bill. It's the Kohl amendment, which says that a debtor can only protect $125,000 of equity in his or her home. Bush thinks there should be no limit on the amount of equity that can be protected. I'm willing to bet the Kohl amendment doesn't survive the House-Senate conference to resolve differences in the bill.

    But it galls me to think Bush has the audicity to say debtors have a moral olibigation to pay their bills -- unless they have a half-million dollars of equity in their house. Now that's a protect-the-rich feature.

    By the way, the two states that allow you to keep an unlimited amount of equity in your house are Florida and Texas. Hmmm...
  6. lbrown59

    lbrown59 Well-Known Member

    Re: Bush's hypocrisy

    I agree with Lizard
    Author: Jim (---.lib.uci.edu)
    Date: 03-17-01 11:26

    I view the Bk bill as a bipartisan gift to the credit card companies.

    Reply To Message==They were bought again!
  7. judyputy

    judyputy Well-Known Member

    Good for you Ann Marie

    My husband wanted to file a year ago but I refused too. We make plenty of money and pay all our bills on time with extra money to each cc. But I wasn't willing to ruin a perfect credit rating just for the sake of not having to pay anymore. I have always paid on time, every month, have no charge offs, or judgements. But, we have a lot of debt and sometimes it sucks to have to pay it every month. But we spent it and we need to pay it back. I couldn't see a judge telling us... sure, you make loads of money and can easily pay more than the minimums, but just file and wipe it all out because you don't feel like paying anymore.

    I don't see this new bill as keeping people who really need to file from filing. They can still file. It is just going to make it a little tougher to wipe the slate. So maybe instead of dumping everything, they pay 20% of their debt back and a very reduced rate. They still get rid of 80%. If they don't have the means for even that then they won't be made to pay anything. But this bill will make it very hard for people who recklessly spend up their bills to walk away from everything. I saw a post on a bankruptcy board once where someone said they were going to file but waited 2 months because they wanted to get a new car first. Now that's dishonest. Put off filing until you get your brand new car then file and not pay. THAT'S what they are trying to stop.

    Now I will get of my soapbox, too.
  8. lbrown59

    lbrown59 Well-Known Member

    Re: Good for you Ann Marie

    Re: bk law& lower rates!!!
    Author: lizardking (---.tampabay.rr.com)
    Date: 03-17-01 09:46
    What we need is a new amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act for when there is a dispute that the CRAs refuse to remove. There needs to be more teeth for the dispute process.
    REPLY= What is really needed is a complete rewriting of all consumer laws to correct the many current flaws and to close the various loopholes!

Share This Page