My comments about the possible long term effects on the economy were not a "chicken little" cry, far from it. I was attempting to point out that the effect of long term adverse economic "unintended consequences" of BK reform would probably have a balancing backlash reaction from State lawmakers.
Dani, The car expense topic was discussed at length at lunch today with my legalbeagles group (attys & paralegals) and I have to correct some statements I made. First the allowance for a car payment is $419 nationally. The $297 LA expense number includes everything else...maintenance, insurance and fuel. So a 1 car per family situation would probably do ok in a compact car. Where it goes downhill is when a family has 2 or more cars. The expense allowance will go up to $351 for a two car family in LA...but the marginal difference will just barely cover the cost of insuring 2 vehicles in LA...which is ranked 23rd most expensive in the country but #8 in car thefts. The fact that you live in a neighborhood that is mostly one car families I think is unusual. I have lived in a number of neighborhoods in the past ten years...not ritzy...but comfortable middle class and the 1 car family was rare. Most of the people in my neighborhood now are working couples so owning 2 vehicles is essential. In answer to WhyChat's question re: the economy. The untapped credit in this economy is fairly large. In fact there is a member here (I can't remember his nick) that makes money by using people's untapped credit and repaying them with considerable interest. As the untapped credit shrinks so do the $$s spent. So my opinion is that the bk reform will have a definite effect on the retail economy especially. People will hesitate to apply for credit because the options for dealing with that debt in the case of some life upheaval will be too severe to take the risk. While the cc's think this is pro-business, economically is in actuality anti-business. The supply-demand curve intersected by the price line will become classically elastic for retailers at large. Dani, I apologized to you on this thread so I really don't understand you going on and on...nobody has remarked that you were immature. As for the Bush comment...it was one sentence in a long post...his popularity stands right now at 70%...I don't think this comment was way OT as in was in reply to something you posted (which you later said was a "joke"). I am always in favor of a good discussion...but not at the expense of making people who feel that bk is their only option feel badly about an already tough decision. I do not think that the majority of these people are "deadbeats" or financially irresponsible. As Butch indicated in his posts a little understanding re:each individuals particular case might be in order here. JMHO, clc
clc, Is a truce in order? I apologize as well (I have been trying to lose 10 lbs and haven't had sugar in a week...so right now I am really moody). On this topic we will just agree to disagree. Most families in my neighborhood have two cars (usually older cars), but their one income homes. Usually, the mother staying home to raise the children (although a couple of dads stay home as well). Most families, at least, where I live, cannot afford two new cars and the hefty mortgage payment since only one person is providing. I meant to say income, not cars in my last post...I don't remember what I wrote. In regards to the immaturity statement that was from Butch (in not so many words) and we already discussed that. I am glad to see that the national average is higher so people will be able to afford a decent car, insurance, and fuel. I think $419 is a reasonable rate. Dani
Appears to me that he is trying to ride the fence on this one. While having already pledged his support, the words that come from his mouth are contrary in part to his intended actions.
