Credit Cards
 

Plus all the free soda you want from the firm!

Credit Cards
 

If that is true, the bill is a bad one. I never defended the bill. This was my first diatribe on the subject. I disagree with the party all the time. I have been trying for years to get the pro-life stuff out of the platform (mainly here in California). I sent a letter similar to the stuff I posted here to all the Republican Congressman and Senators I have raised money for. However, I don't know how much good it will do because I am sure the Credit Card companies have raised a lot more than I have.

Credit Cards
 

Works for the guy working teh night shift at Ford too. What if they said no? Then you have to get someone to accept your balance transfer. It may surprise you to know that the CC cos. lining the halls of the student union in the Fall don't also set up shop outside the factories.

But I'm getting too far down the road of devil's advocate here. Yeah, freedom of contract, etc. But this bill isn't mainly about freedom of contract, it's about cutting off access to bankruptcy for people who may deserve it. The screening mechanism is simply too blunt.

Credit Cards
 

I know you are being slightly tongue-in-cheek on this, but how do you feel about what this says about our system?

Credit Cards
 

True. Although this makes absolutely no sense. However, you're on EST, so I suppose you could be drunk by now.

Credit Cards
 

I was just giving a sample-of-one-Sebby-response. You're definitely not playing my devil's advocate. I know this bill sucks.

Credit Cards
 

While I pay buckets-full of money for my PPO, and I've received adequate services in exchange for those dollars, my experience does not necessarily lead me to believe that the health care system is working fine as it is, nor do I reflexively conclude that others who raise complaints about it are mere bullshit peddlers.

Credit Cards
 

Don't confuse me like that. With Sebby at least I know he's mainly correct about his foul truths. You, not so sure.

Caption, Please.
 

Caption, Please.
 

Why? You looking to "borrow" a funny one without attribution for your blog?


[I think he loves his blog more than he loves us!]

Credit Cards
 

Its the worst system save the rest. Seriously, the problem is the public just doesn't pay attention. That is why the special interests are so strong. I don't focus much on national politics becaue it is just too hard to influence stuff. There are too many players and to much money sloshing around. That is why I focus on state and local politics. I don't pay much attention to federal legislation because I can't do much of anything about it.

Caption, Please.
 

"You! Yeah, you! The guy who was just run over by three dirt bikes. Come take a picture with me. Smile, we're gonna put this picture in the stable next to my wife!"

Caption, Please.
 

What happened last night was completely natural, but then again we don't need to go telling anyone anything about it. Just smile for the camera.

From STRATFOR
 

Geopolitical Diary: Friday, March 11, 2005

Apart from a nearly predictable pattern of suicide bombings in Iraq, al Qaeda for the most part has fallen eerily silent. Nevertheless, it still managed to make the news on two fronts Thursday, at a time when there was no shortage of major stories around the world.

First, ABC News broadcast a confidential FBI report that questioned al Qaeda's ability to mount any further "spectacular attacks" against the United States, and acknowledged that Bureau officials know of no sleeper cells within the country. The 32-page report was considered exciting because it contradicted statements by Director Robert Mueller, who told Congress last year that officials believed sleeper cells were probably in place. Only a month ago, Mueller -- in concert with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and CIA Director Porter Goss -- again sounded an ominous note, telling the Senate Select Intelligence Committee that sleeper agents could attempt to use weapons of mass destruction in an attack.

From our standpoint, while the existence of the secret report itself may be news, the rest of the news is not. Though not prone to betting against al Qaeda, we have been known to question the sleeper cell theory, while acknowledging that some of our sources firmly believed at least a small number of sleeper agents to be present within the country. We also have discussed the logic for a spectacular strike and the group's apparent lack of ability to mount one, at least by American definitions. The FBI report also lines up with our thinking in discussing the need for al Qaeda to recruit new operatives who do not fit the jihadist profile of young, Middle Eastern or South Asian males.

Together with other recent events, the FBI document seems to point toward a serious weakening of al Qaeda.

If reports can be trusted that Osama bin Laden has asked Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to expand operations beyond Iraq and attempt to strike at the continental United States, then the group may really be in trouble. There are two reasons for this. First, the move would indicate a high degree of reliance on al-Zarqawi, whose organization is only newly allied with al Qaeda, for continuing street cred. And second, there were new reports Thursday that al-Zarqawi's operations network has been all but wiped out. The Iraqi government released a statement saying that although al-Zarqawi and Abu Talha, reportedly the network chief in Mosul, remain at large, 11 of al-Zarqawi's lieutenants have been captured and seven others killed. If the Iraq organization is now al Qaeda's main stem of operational support throughout the world, it would be a slender reed indeed.

But even more interesting, to our mind, is a lesser-noticed report from Europe, where the Islamic Commission of Spain denounced bin Laden as an apostate.

Now, what this actually means, in terms of religious process or consequences, is not entirely clear. The Islamic Commission of Spain is the main body representing the country's 1 million Muslims, and the group's secretary-general, Mansur Escudero, said its fatwa was privately supported by Muslim leaders in Morocco, Algeria and Libya as well. But whether the edict actually accomplishes what is intended -- to excommunicate bin Laden from the body of Islam -- remains a question.

Though moderate Muslims the world over have regularly condemned al Qaeda and terrorism in the name of Islam since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Spanish organization is the first to move beyond political condemnation of bin Laden to eternal condemnation. And that's probably because the issue of excommunication within Islam is extremely complex. Not only does it require findings of specific criteria (which are not easily established), but it is not clear who has the overall say in making the decision; there are too many rival authorities with competing claims of recognition.

Thus, while there is broad consensus among moderate Muslims that bin Laden is repulsive, whether he actually can be declared a kafir is going to excite some debate.

For bin Laden and Muslims in general, this is no trivial matter. The Spanish fatwa will put pressure on other Muslim authorities to respond -- especially those in Western countries and in the United States particularly -- declaring whether they agree or disagree. And from a theological standpoint, the excommunication of the leader of a group that asserts itself as the vanguard of the Muslim world will be a thorny matter -- to say the least.

It is useful here to note a discussion on terminology that only recently has begun to gain traction in Washington. Several leading U.S. Muslim scholars long have referred to the activities of al Qaeda and other militant groups as "hirabah" (terrorism) -- rejecting use of the word "jihad," which has authentic purposes within Islam and thus, it is argued, confers a degree of legitimacy to illegitimate acts.

This discourse is likely to play into the coming intra-Muslim debate, at least to some degree. At any rate, religious entities that are reluctant to declare bin Laden as a kafir due to the technical difficulties of the process will risk being seen as tacit sympathizers. And those that align with the Spanish commission will be viewed by many Muslims as tampering with their theology, even if they do not support al Qaeda's cause.

We suspect bin Laden will be counting on this debate to help shore up what appears to be his increasingly fragile position.

Caption, Please.
 

True. Although this makes absolutely no sense. However, you're on CST, so I suppose you could be drunk by now.

Caption, Please.
 

I hear Friday calling me.

Caption, Please.
 

Enjoy your Jesus juice!

Caption, Please.
 

Acknowledging that the tradition of pageantry for royal weddings must sometimes bow to reality, the Queen has directed the Protocol Office to approve the small, simple civil ceremony that Prince Charles and his bride desire.

Economist's view of the Bankruptcy Bill
 

Bankruptcy laws

Now pay it back

Mar 10th 2005 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition


At last, Congress gets tough on debtors

LAST year, nearly 1.6m Americans filed for relief from their creditors. That number has almost doubled in the past decade. Under current law, people get their debts wiped away by the mere act of filing under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code. But a new law, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, makes that much harder. It imposes a means test that would force people who earn more than their state's median income into Chapter 13 of the code, which requires debtors to submit to a repayment plan. It would also make poorer debtors jump through many more hoops to get relief.

The American Bankruptcy Institute has statistics about bankruptcy in America and news of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act.

As The Economist went to press, the bill looked likely to pass the Senate. The Republicans had fended off nearly every Democratic bid to soften it. They also voted down an attempt by Chuck Schumer, the senior senator from New York, to tack on a provision blocking violent protesters, including those protesting outside abortion clinics, from filing for bankruptcy in order to avoid fines. (This amendment had sunk the bill in previous years, when pro-life House Republicans revolted.) Now the bill is in a shape both the House leadership and George Bush say they will accept. But is it a sensible reform?

America's 30-year-old bankruptcy law—as Democrats and consumers' groups point out—is rooted in the idea of a “fresh start” for honest debtors who have had a spot of bad luck—illness, divorce, a lost job. But credit-card issuers and banks have long been pushing for a change. The stigma of bankruptcy, they argue, has eroded, and Chapter 7 is too often used as a financial planning tool. Meanwhile, honest borrowers are forced to pay a “bankruptcy tax” in the form of higher interest rates and credit-card penalties.

Is the system really abused? In fact, evidence suggests that the boom in personal bankruptcies has more to do with the piling on of consumer debt than with debtors playing the system. In the 1990s, revolving debt (mostly credit-card debt), grew by as much as 12% a year; from 1980 to 2004, it increased nearly 15 times. And the non-partisan American Bankruptcy Institute puts the number of bankruptcy filers who could afford to pay a good chunk of their debts at 3.6%: still a big number, but not nearly as much as the 10% or more claimed by creditor groups.






In any case, the bill's means test (an average of the debtor's past six months of income) should catch those who can clearly pay up. But opponents fear that the test, which they think too harsh and arbitrary, will drag those who rightly belong in Chapter 7 unfairly into court.

More troubling is the part of the legislation that makes it harder for poorer debtors, not likely to be the abusers of the system, to file for bankruptcy. Some 84% of all filers are too poor to qualify for the new law's means test. But they will still be put through a great deal of rigmarole to get relief. For example, all debtors will have to get credit counselling before they file—a costly process, and one which does little to steer people out of bankruptcy. The bill also requires people to produce all sorts of paperwork, from payroll stubs to tax returns. Those who have not kept strict records will have to give up or pay for a lawyer to plead their case in court.

Other quirks of the legislation make one wonder why credit-industry groups are so keen on it. One loophole allows rich debtors to go on shielding assets in special trust accounts that are legal in a few states. And debtors' fancy homes in Texas and Florida will still be off-limits to creditors. The bill's backers say that fear of trampling on states' rights stopped them closing such loopholes. But it smells rather pervasively like special treatment for the rich.

Caption, Please.
 

You'll have to stop by later, old chap. Mr. Jackson has spoken very highly of you.

[ETA Spanky got it first]

Credit Cards
 

Please define which interests are "special."

Credit Cards
 

Any group that is organized around a self serving issue or set of issues. A good indicator is if they have hired a lobbyist. Examples. They place the interest of the group above the welfare of the country as a whole.

The united ice cream makers association: wants higher tariffs on imported ice cream and lower tariffs on mild, cream and whatever else the use to make their product.

Classic special interest groups:
1) Telecom industry
2) Corporate agricultural interests
3) Unions: want to keep their members jobs even it sacrifices other jobs from being created or reducing prices for the american consumer
4) Trial lawyers


I don't consider anyone group that thinks it is benefitting the country as a hole a special interest. Even if I disagree with them

Pro-choice groups
Pro-life groups
environmental groups
pro-gun and anti gun groups - except for gun manufactureres association - they are a special interest just because they care about themselves.

not a perfect definition but the one I use.

Credit Cards
 

Before anyone other than Club gets a hernia worrying themselves over the poor credit card issuers who are losing money on bankrupt borrowers, let's inderstand one simple fact. Most of these issuers have already earned a huge profit on these borrowers; profit that dwarves the relatively small amount of the average writeoff.

Your average subprime credit card offer looks a lot like this:

The borower gets a "chance to rebuild their credit."

The credit limit on the account is around $250-500.

The card issuer charges an annual fee of about $40-50.

There is a $25-30 charge on each of the following: overlimits; late payments; bounced checks.

The issuer applies payments to these fees and interest before the first dollar of principal is paid.

There is a reason that the subprime segment of the market is the fastest growing and most lucrative segment, even after bankruptcies are factored in.

These assholes are even worse than insurance companies.

Credit Cards
 

An old, but very good, article supporting everything but your last intemperate statement:

http://editorial-ene.com/Credit-Card...es-article.htm

Credit Cards
 

I apologize if I offended you, old man. However, I have a bit of a bone to bite with an industry that collects whatever it chooses in premiums, then, when you make a claim on the policy they've been reaping in premiums for years from, they get to decide whether or not they will honor their commitment to pay the claim, and to what degree.

Case in point. The hospital charges me $X for a visit. The insurance company decides that only $X-Y is "reasonable" for the hospital stay. I don't get to do that; why should they? For that matter, why shouldn't I be able to say "I'm sorry, but a "reasonable" premium would be about 15% lower, so that's what I'm paying you for coverage.

And don't even get me started on how the insurance industry, with its "delay, delay, delay, and only then pay" strategy has created the "tort crisis" out of whole cloth.

Credit Cards
 

While I'm sure that's true, there is good reason that PVN traded down below $5.00 in the last few years. And that NXCD isn't publicly traded anymore. And that KRB hasn't had a steady ride to the moon. Nor COF. And in the subprime car business, someone once convinced the market that ACF was going out of business.

If nothing else, it taught me to buy subprimes when the U.S. economy is looking weak. WHen it invariably comes back, these companies do make money hand over fist. But when they start taking hits (e.g., late 2001-2003), the stock market convinces itself that they are all insolvent and not worth a dime. Funny that.

Credit Cards
 

Well, first, I make a big distinction in my own mind between liability insurers and health care orgs, since I know one industry and not the other, so, to the extent you address just the one, maybe I should beg off in ignorance.

But, to the extent that logic can fill in blanks in actual knowledge:

"The hospital charges me $X for a visit. The insurance company decides that only $X-Y is "reasonable" for the hospital stay. I don't get to do that; why should they?"

Because it's in the contract into which you (or your employer, more likely) entered. Same with auto insurers only paying a certain amount for a wrecked fender; they take known risks based on predictable costs, and aren't willing (understandably) to pay unreasonable amounts as part of their contractual duty. Why should an insurer send off a check for $3000 for a fender when they know that the same fender can be purchased for $300? Why should they pay $4000 for a hospital room when they know that the prevailing reasonable charge is $1200? Heck, this issue alone has probably done more to keep health care costs down from the provider than any other provision. Do you think hospitals and clinics and docs would keep their rates where they are if they knew they could simply pick any desirable charge and get it paid?

A contract for insurance isn't a promise of a blank check. It calls for a premium in exchange for a set of known benefits. Why would you not question your clinic as to the charge being too high, instead of questioning what you've explicitly contracted for from the insurer?

Credit Cards
 

This is probably far afield from your and Wonk's original discussion, but I'm still tempted to ask an Actual Question (arising from a parent's recent hospital trip):

Let's say that the insurer tells me that I can attend a given clinic (or hospital, or doctor, or whatever) and that for a given procedure I'm covered 100% (or my deductible is flat and already paid, etc.)

I go to the hospital, my bill comes, and I see that the hospital charged a zillion dollars, my insurer decided to pay only half a zillion dollars, and my amount to pay at the bottom is zero. WTF?

I'm sure part of this are contracts for services that the insurer negotiates with the applicable health provider about what the insurer will actually pay for procedure XYZ. Still, why are the numbers so out of whack, and why does the provided still choose to send those bills out if they're not at all related to what they actually get paid? Why, RT, why?

Credit Cards
 

Mr. Wonk - I don't loose sleep over the credit companyes either, but the people I do feel that do get screwed over are the small businessman who have a ninety day invoice period with wealthy purchasers and they get screwed by a bankruptcy. I see it with these palaces in the Silicon Valley. The people go out and hire all sorts of contracters to build stuff, buy items for their house, etc and then declare bankruptcy.

I don't know if you read the last few lines of the Economist article but it said: "Other quirks of the legislation make one wonder why credit-industry groups are so keen on it. One loophole allows rich debtors to go on shielding assets in special trust accounts that are legal in a few states. And debtors' fancy homes in Texas and Florida will still be off-limits to creditors. The bill's backers say that fear of trampling on states' rights stopped them closing such loopholes. But it smells rather pervasively like special treatment for the rich."

I believe it is these areas where the reform is needed most and the bill doesn't cover these areas. I believe small businesses are the key to the success of the US economy and they are very fragile.

Credit Cards
 

No way. Even the least sophisticated home contractor knows how to file and perfect a mechanic's lien. Secured debt - that's the way to go. Bankruptcy? No prob - take their house.

Credit Cards
 

Maybe he's worried about decorators?

Spankme, you fucking moron, none of us here (or, none of the people saying bankruptcy bill sucks, which is pretty much everyone who has commented on it) is in favor of letting people who don't need bankruptcy and have money and shit use the bankruptcy loophole for homestead exemptions to shield themselves from the consequences of their obnoxious actions, so I don't know what purpose your little speech had. I mean, it's like having a little speech on how it's bad to sodomize toddlers, because children are our future. Duh.

Credit Cards
 

Be fair. Aside from an unfortunate choice of examples, his point is a valid one - that, while we talk about bankrupting out of debt owed to the big bad credit card companies, which goes a long way to curing that nagging "well, they DO owe the money" feeling, more debt is actually wiped out that is owed to small businesses. They're the ones operating on slim margins, with poor financing options, and are the least able to weather the hit of the accounts receivables going poof.

It's fun to work hard to get your client's divorce and custody battle done right, at a discounted price because you feel sympathy for her financial straits, and for which you didn't demand the full fee up front because you knew she didn't have it, and then get the bk filing served on you a few months later. (It's even more fun when you find out through mutual friends that, while you were being a softie, her plan was to BK out of your bill from the start.) It's fun to extend credit to a small retailer, in the form of shipping them an order of your small import company's goods without demanding COD or payment up front, and then getting the filing notice. It's fun to keep on taking those Smith kids in to your home day care, even though Ms. Smith is now three months behind on her bill - heck, it's hard to tell them to stop coming, 'cuz you're a softie at heart - and then get the bk filing.

I still don't like this bill at all - but BK does have a very personal cost for many individuals. It's not just the big companies that get bitten by BK.

Credit Cards
 

At your average state legislature, you describe everyone in the room.

The urge to blame "special interests," from both sides of the aisle, is a pet peeve for me. There are people and groups on both sides of most issues. Whichever side wins, we denegrate as a "special interest."

The truth is, at the state legislature level anyway, that these lobbyists are often the only people that know anything about the issue at hand - the part-time legislators surely don't. Most are there because they believe in the issue for which they advocate, or at least their employers do. Believe it or not, they can actually believe that what they want is in the overrall "best interest" of the country as a whole.

Let me give you an example. When I was in college, a group of fellow student, whom I joined toward the end, spent a lot of their personal time lobbying the state legislature for a change that would benefit student (it cost nothing). The whole thing was handled without any budget, and with only the effort of less than a dozen students.

Were we one of your dreaded "special interest groups?" Were the faculty members who ultimately thwarted our efforts?

For the most part, there is an interest group on every side. With only very few exceptions, it is simplistic of us to dismiss any legislative decision as only the result of the pressure from "special interests" (mostly because we only have this complaint when we disagree).

What about the People for Ice Cream Choice? Are they a special interest as well?

You really just think these people are evil? You think they don't sincerely believe that its important to we create good (i.e. union) jobs, and not dead-end, low-wage service industry jobs? Or that its in the counrty's best interest to protect injured victims instead of negligent businesses? Is your test really anything other than group with whom you disagree?

Credit Cards
 

How is Bob at Progressive these days anyway? Still givin' ya hell about the bills? Or is he finally okay with your $75/hr rate?

Credit Cards
 

That's what they charge the uninsured.

Credit Cards
 

I know that. Jesus. But no one is saying here that defrauding people is good. They are saying that the bill doesn't address the valid concerns. And his example was utter crap. And don't extend credit. I mean, if you let someone get three months behind on their bill, do you really think you are going to get paid? If they really don't have any money? And weren't even making small, good-faith payments? Why should we protect people who are too stupid to get secured debt?

That last sentence was tongue-in-cheek.

Credit Cards
 

You would not believe how many wealthy people use bankruptcy to avoid debts. Estate planning attorneys and financial advisors recommend it as an option like its a tax shelter. As far as mechnics liens, I have come across many of them but I have never seen a forclosure date set by a mechanics lien. I just wasn't sure if you could actually forclose on a six hundred thousand dollar house with a two thousand dollars mechanics lien.

In any case, I had a man approach me to help him refinance. One of my researchers found him because he had received a notice of default. He has a ten million dollar home. He showed me his file and he must have had three hundred to four hundred bills he had not paid. From carpet cleaners, to gardners etc. I am just sure he told all these people to bill him and they saw the size of the house and were sure they would get paid. He is now in bankruptcy and everything is cleared. I talked to his bankruptcy attorney and he told me he does these type of bankruptcies all the time.

I have personal experience with this so lighten up francis.

Credit Cards
 

As far as Unions are concerned, if they are in support of a bill then I know the consumers are taking it in the derrier. The worst is the public service unions. Particularly the California Teachers Association. Anytime anyone has proposed legislation that would allow incompetant teachers to be dismissed they freak out like you are asking them to take a seventy five percent pay cut. It seems so ubsurd to me that you can't get rid of incompetance but they think job secuirty is some sort of divine right. In LA they have what is called the "dance of the lemons". At a high school, when enough parents complain about a principle, they just move him or her to another high school. They just keep moving them around. They do the same thing with teachers. If you question this policy you are accused of attacking eduction. The prisons union in California is also completely out of hand. Prisoners are getting killed and beat up all the time by correctional officers, but if any legislator even hints at having an investigation why so many prisoners in california end up in hospitals (or why so many female inmate end up pregnant or with veneral disease) the prison unions claim they are soft on law enforcement and siding with the criminals. In San Franicsco the transit union has insured that the average transit worker earns six figures and they get four months off a year.

There are always people on every side of an issue, but there are people that have a vested financial interest and that is all they care about.

Credit Cards
 

There are businesses that exist to make a profit out of being rather hard-hearted towards people and enforcing simple good business practices. Credit card companies, for example. We're calling them evil whoremasters throughout most of these posts, but then your suggestion to my extending credit to a hard-luck story is, be more like them?

Credit Cards
 

I made this point earlier, when I was speaking about the impact of this bill - how primarily it is aimed at the lower-income debtors, and has big, sweeping, explicitly-aimed exceptions carved out that benefit only the high-net-worth bankrupts. The point is, this bill is bad because it makes BK harder for those that truly need it (and who can BK with the least impact on society) and it makes it easier (or at least, not harder at all - I still need to read the trust provisions) for the true abusers. It's a purchased favor for the credit industry, but with the caveat that "our friends" will be protected.