CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Getting to know McCain: Yes on bankruptcy bill, no on protecting veterans from it
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Getting to know McCain: Yes on bankruptcy bill, no on protecting veterans from it

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 
With the 2005 bankruptcy bill, the credit card companies and banking industry got the best free-for-all since (McCain economic adviser) Phil Gramm led the charge to repeal the Glass-Stegall Act and open the way for the current banking industry meltdown.

This bill, sponsored by Republican Chuck Grassley in the Senate, once tried to sneak into law during the Clinton administration but Clinton had the decency to veto it.

Here's some of the criticism of the bill at the time from the Washington Post:
Quote:
Consumer advocacy groups and many Democrats, who fought the legislation, disagree, arguing that lenders' liberal credit policies and aggressive sales practices have been equally responsible for putting many Americans over their heads in debt. They say the new legislation would be too harsh on individuals driven into debt by job loss, sickness, divorce or military duty. That is especially unfair, they say, because the bill would preserve loopholes that enable wealthy individuals who file for bankruptcy to shield unlimited amounts of money in complex trusts and in multimillion-dollar homes in states including Texas and Florida.

"The big winner under the new law will be credit card issuers, whose reckless and abusive lending practices have driven many Americans to the brink of bankruptcy," said Travis B. Plunkett, lobbyist for the nonprofit Consumer Federation of America. "Now that Americans in bankruptcy will have to pay more back to creditors, they have a right to expect that credit card companies will lower their interest rates and fees. We will be watching credit card companies closely to see if they will become more responsible corporate citizens in return for this unprecedented gift from Congress."
When this bill came through the Senate, Democratic Senator Durbin (Ill) proposed an amendment that would protect service men and women filing bankruptcy from losing their homes.

Here's how McCain voted, as opposed to Obama:

Quote:
Senate Amendment 16: To protect servicemembers and veterans from means testing in bankruptcy, to disallow certain claims by lenders charging usurious interest rates to servicemembers, and to allow servicemembers to exempt property based on the law of the State of their premilitary residence.

Obama: For
McCain: Against
McCain did vote on a later amendment for servicemen, but as you can see the scope has narrowed quite a bit:
Quote:
Senate Amendment 112: To protect disabled veterans from means testing in bankruptcy under certain circumstances.

Obama: For
McCain: For
Several other amendments were proposed to this bill...

Quote:
Senate Amendment 15: To require enhanced disclosure to consumers regarding the consequences of making only minimum required payments in the repayment of credit card debt, and for other purposes.

Obama: For
McCain: Against

Senate Amendment 38: To discourage predatory lending practices.

Obama: For
McCain: Against

Senate Amendment 89: To strike certain small business related bankruptcy provisions in the bill.

Obama: For
McCain: Against
Here's a particularly telling one. Think ENRON.
Quote:
Senate Amendment 49: To protect employees and retirees from corporate practices that deprive them of their earnings and retirement savings when a business files for bankruptcy.

Obama: For
McCain: Against
And on the bill itself, S. 256:

Quote:
Obama: Against
McCain: For
Source

Obama recently had words about McCain siding with the banking industry, and here's the McCain campaign response.
Quote:
McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds responded in a statement: "Eighteen Democrats and John McCain worked together on the bipartisan Senate bankruptcy bill, and Barack Obama's rigid partisanship and self-promoting political attacks show that he's a typical politician — which is the problem in Washington, not the solution."
What Mr. Bounds doesn't do here is explain McCain's reasons for voting for this bill, and against all the amendments that seem pretty fair and legitimate to me.

One last postscript on the bill:
Quote:
A key sponsor of the bill, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), actively opposes abortion and same-sex marriage on biblical grounds yet believes the Good Book's clear definition and condemnation of usury is irrelevant. The Old Testament, revered by Jews, Muslims and Christians alike, mandates debt forgiveness after seven years, as was pointed out earlier this month by an organization of Christian lawyers in a letter to Grassley.

"I can't listen to Christian lawyers," said the senator, "because I would be imposing the Bible on a diverse population."

Sadly, when it comes to serving the prerogatives of banks, you can forget about those family values that folks such as Grassley prattle on about. The bill he wrote placed mothers and their children behind credit card companies in the line for a bankrupt ex-husband's paycheck, for example, which is positively Dickensian. Expected to sail through the House and onto the President's desk in the next few weeks, the bill turns the federal government into a guardian angel of an industry gone mad, placing no significant restriction on soaring interest rates and proliferating fees.
Source.
post #2 of 9
I just have to know you think it is okay that Dems are voting yes to amend this bill?







Why for the love of all that is holy would you be okay with anyone voting to pass this monster in any form? Any sane people would be advocating that any politician that has any thing to do with this bill in any form, should be took out, and shot as a trader to the state. This bill violates so many principle on so many levels it, sick. it is the sickest piece of legislation I have ever seen. This bill in any from meed a No vote, period!
post #3 of 9
I think it is better to amend a bill that has already passed than to leave it be out of principle. The operative point here is: already passed. I don't think it should have gotten that far in the first place, but that's the Congress for you.
post #4 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
I think it is better to amend a bill that has already passed than to leave it be out of principle. The operative point here is: already passed. I don't think it should have gotten that far in the first place, but that's the Congress for you.
it passed fuck. Oh well we are all doomed to slavery now. ok I going to start making some toys for friends now.
post #5 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by eenin View Post

Any sane people would be advocating that any politician that has any thing to do with this bill in any form, should be took out, and shot as a trader to the state.
Best typo evah.
post #6 of 9
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by eenin View Post
I just have to know you think it is okay that Dems are voting yes to amend this bill?







Why for the love of all that is holy would you be okay with anyone voting to pass this monster in any form? Any sane people would be advocating that any politician that has any thing to do with this bill in any form, should be took out, and shot as a trader to the state. This bill violates so many principle on so many levels it, sick. it is the sickest piece of legislation I have ever seen. This bill in any from meed a No vote, period!
Eenin, one thing you have to understand about this Congress -- the Democrats have NO power without Republican support. They don't have enough votes on their own to enable debate, much less get anything passed, and they don't have enough votes in the Senate to override a Bush veto. The Republicans put this bill through, with the help of a handful of slimy Democrats who should be ashamed of themselves.
post #7 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
With the 2005 bankruptcy bill, the credit card companies and banking industry got the best free-for-all since (McCain economic adviser) Phil Gramm led the charge to repeal the Glass-Stegall Act and open the way for the current banking industry meltdown.

This bill, sponsored by Republican Chuck Grassley in the Senate, once tried to sneak into law during the Clinton administration but Clinton had the decency to veto it.

Here's some of the criticism of the bill at the time from the Washington Post:


When this bill came through the Senate, Democratic Senator Durbin (Ill) proposed an amendment that would protect service men and women filing bankruptcy from losing their homes.

Here's how McCain voted, as opposed to Obama:



McCain did vote on a later amendment for servicemen, but as you can see the scope has narrowed quite a bit:


Several other amendments were proposed to this bill...



Here's a particularly telling one. Think ENRON.


And on the bill itself, S. 256:



Source

Obama recently had words about McCain siding with the banking industry, and here's the McCain campaign response.


What Mr. Bounds doesn't do here is explain McCain's reasons for voting for this bill, and against all the amendments that seem pretty fair and legitimate to me.

One last postscript on the bill:


Source.
I didn't click on your links but the majority of this is just bullshit. Amendments are mostly about changing the wording around or crafting a bill to model what you want out of it. Sort of like making lemonaid out of lemons.

I looked this over for about an hour and a half and actually went to the ammendment and read it and looked over the Senate transcripts to get what the motive was behind these things and let me tell you. You're little gotcha's? Bullshit.

I could go on about each one but I'll save space by covering the 'shocker!" The one about Enron? Here is what the Amendment that wanted to be added was mostly about

Quote:
My amendment says we would go back 4 years before the bankruptcy to recover that money and put it in the hands of creditors, employees, and retirees.
In the actual bill? It is one year.

Oh and the one about servicemen?

16 had a bunch of shit.. more nickel and dime stuff. Mostly had to do with expanding the ability for people to file bankruptcy even though they got themselves in the bind to begin with, like for example with payday loans. If you go to a payday loan place and you end up hugely in debt, how is it fair that you get to just wipe that debt out under bankruptcy???

Here's why McCain voted for SA 112
Quote:
The last point is one I almost offer in desperation, amendment No. 112. I cannot believe my colleagues have rejected all of these amendments when they relate to men and women in the armed services, but the last amendment relates to disabled veterans, men and women who become disabled as a result of their service in America and face bankruptcy. It is a final appeal to my friends on both sides of the aisle: If you cannot work up sympathy for men and women in uniform serving our country, at least have some concern for those who are disabled and come back and face bankruptcy. Don't put them through these unreasonable tests and standards in this bill. I would think all of us could agree that disabled veterans should be given some sort of a helping hand in this bankruptcy process.
The bankruptcy overhaul was needed. This was a bipartisan bill, McCain was doing the job he was elected to do with this one.
post #8 of 9
Hated that bankruptcy bill. It's one of the main reasons why I have trouble with Biden, despite the fact that he's a likable guy and a terrific surrogate for BO.

Is it any wonder why this bill passed right before all the lousy news with the credit market came to fruition? It's enough to make one extremely cynical of Washington.
post #9 of 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
Best typo evah.
that me the master of the type.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Getting to know McCain: Yes on bankruptcy bill, no on protecting veterans from it