posted on March 9, 2005 02:15:28 PM new
Fenix03, I said this, If America had better health care coverage and more good paying jobs there would be way less bankruptcy in America:: You reaction to my post was this,"What a load of crap"
You went on to say about my post America needs good paying jobs. Fenix03 said "As for good paying jobs... don't you think that would be made a bit more feasible if companies were actually receiving the billions of dollars of credit card debts that are being written off?"
Now that you have found out that the top 3 reasons for bankruptcies in America is Medical Bills,Lost Jobs and Divorce. I will ask you the question below.
When is this White House and American industry and Drug companies and health care companies going to start taking responsibility for doing nothing about the cause of record bankruptcies in this country.
After all this White House has done nothing but give industry and the rich tax breaks. The White House has done nothing about the outsourcing of American jobs. Didn't this White House introduce a law stopping Americans from buying cheaper drugs from Canada. What about closing our borders to stop millions of illegals that boast industry profits by supplying cheap labor.
What has this White House done to change the laws for Industrial bankruptcies. I am betting all the personal bankruptcies added together doesn't add up to what companies like Tyco and Enron and others cost this country.
Come on Fenix03 I am sure you are a lot nicer person than some of the self-serving RATS ON THIS BOARD. But I do think its you that needs to get your head out of the sand and look at the real problems this country is facing. Its not the American people that are causing the bankruptcies it this White House that is doing nothing to prevent the problems.
posted on March 9, 2005 02:32:18 PM new
I find this paragraph rather interesting. It was in a article on Yahoo.
"The bill's supporters argued that bankruptcy frequently is the last refuge of gamblers, impulsive shoppers, divorced or separated fathers avoiding child support, and multimillionaires, often celebrities, who buy mansions in states with liberal homestead exemptions to shelter assets from creditors.
Now wait a minute. Health care is provided by the Companies. Remember Pres. Clinton tried to do a health care bill and gave up. So now you blame it on Pres Bush.
Bigpeepa if you want a government run country instead of a democracy where people do and say as they please then why don't you move. It is as simple as that. Maybe China would like to have you, or why not move to Canada where you would get free medical care. Of course it will take you 5 years there. But then who would you sell your antiques to?
posted on March 9, 2005 03:10:13 PM new
What I really don't understand is filing bankruptcy for "medical costs". I incurred over $100K in bills from the hospital for surgeries, Dr's fees, room, Rx's and who knows what all else.
It was over a year later that I started receiving bills from the hospital (while still under the knife several more times). Explained to them the injury prevented me from working, filled out some paperwork and Medicare & Medicaid paid it all off.
As I see it, this bill will stop the filing of frivolous bankruptcies for the sake of convince.
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
1 - It is not the White Houses reponsibility to employ, play marriage counselor, or at this point in time at least, provide health care. Therefore we have ruled out the resposibility of the White House in the main causes that you have dictated.
2 - American Industry also does not provide health care or play marriage counselor so I assume that you are speaking of job creation. If our economy is depressed and people are not spending money how exactly do you think that industry is supposed to create more jobs. Where are they supposed to come up with the money to pay for these jobs. The only industry I can think of that could do that would be the printing industry and I think they might encounter a whole new set of problems if they tried.
3) Pharamacutical companies? Come on - that's a huge reach. I mean, I also think that they are the embodiment of evil but I think you are making quite a stretch to attribute a large percentage of bankruptcies to them
It's one thing to be idealistic but somewhere along the line you have to start melding that idealism with reality.
Lets say that "industry" creates all of these needed jobs, offers increased pay, and they stop exporting jobs. The one guarantee of raising payroll is a lessening of profits. Profits drop, stocks drop. One Stock drops, more stocks drop. Many stocks drop, dollar value drops. Dollar value drops... "Industry" shuts down and now everyone is unemployed.
This country is going down hill fast and it has nothing to do with terrorism, or our government, violent video games, single parentage or any of the like. It's because we have become lazy and unadventuous. We used to be nation based on innovation and growth. Now everyone stands around and complains that they want everything to be like it was. The world around us is changing and we need get on the boat and play to our strengths, build on the future and stop wallowing in the losses. There is a big huge european market out there with much more valuable money to be had... Why are we not exploring that? I could go and on about ways to assist our economy by becoming a proactive aspect of a global economy but the problem is that no one wants to hear it. Half the aspects piss off the left and the other half piss off the right so nothing will ever be done because people are too busy trying to stay within the lines.
Come on Fenix03 I am sure you are a lot nicer person than some of the self-serving RATS ON THIS BOARD.
It is strange that you would bring up niceties of individuals when you praise the loving nature of someone that can be found in nearly every thread wishing death or injury to various posters or their family and calling the rest of them names rather than actually addresing the topic.
Its not the American people that are causing the bankruptcies it this White House that is doing nothing to prevent the problems.
Well, Crow refused to answer this one so maybe you will .... At what point in time is a person supposed to stand up and take responsibility for their own actions? How can we tell our government that they should not be allowed to decide who we marry or what we do with our bodies and then turn around and get mad that they do not adequately control our finances?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 9, 2005 03:40:05 PM new
Hello first Bear said this After I broke my leg. I was forces to file bankruptcy, and opted for Chapter 13. I wanted to pay my debt, just needed time to do so.
Then Bear says this "What I really don't understand is filing bankruptcy for "medical costs". I incurred over $100K in bills from the hospital for surgeries, Dr's fees, room, Rx's and who knows what all else.
It was over a year later that I started receiving bills from the hospital (while still under the knife several more times). Explained to them the injury prevented me from working, filled out some paperwork and Medicare & Medicaid paid it all off."
Are you telling us that a guy like you that supports this White House's war against Social Programs used Social Programs when in need. WOW the truth does come out.
posted on March 9, 2005 04:02:33 PM new
Bear, if I'm understanding you correctly it wouldn't [for medical bills] in your case. But had it been your spouse or your child...those bills wouldn't have been handled in the same manner. ??? And you might have still be obligated to pay for what your insurance didn't.
------------
YEAH FENIX - You set ol' peepa straight.
---------
With all the off topic issues he brought up in that single post, I was wondering just how all those applied to the subject of bankruptcy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on March 9, 2005 06:11:00 PM new
kraft says, "Crowfarm, why can't you have a decent discussion without the crap? While I'm at it, I'm appalled at you saying Linda is a neonazi or whatever you said, because she was beaten as a child. That's awful.
"
Ya, and I got a bridge to sell ya , kraft.
Yes, linduh the poor widow, poor linduh who has a son in the armed services, poorlinduh who was beaten...why I even remember one time when she was getting a butt kicking in a thread she got stomach cramps or something.
I can believe she was beaten as a child becasue SHE is what that produces, someone who has a hatred of, and a feeling of superiority over, those less fortunate (especially her hatred for poor children).
How do you KNOW how she treated her kids????????????????????
How do you KNOW ?
You don't....
posted on March 9, 2005 07:37:14 PM new
There sure are a lot of people here with bridges to sell! (BTW, I already bought one from Bear.)
Crowfarm, I think I'm a pretty good judge of character and throughout the years here, "poorlinduh" hasn't been the type to want pity for any of the things she's going through or has been through. Neither has Fenix - ever. To suggest that is mean.
It gets pretty tiring when people, who bring up personal things, have that used against them. It's happened with Logan and Linda. Instead of them being 'praised' for their admissions, they're called names and accused of doing things and saying things they've never done. Just because Linda doesn't agree with the left, doesn't mean every other aspect of her life should be torn apart on this board - by you or anyone else. One day you might have something bad happen to you that'll change your life forever. I hope you don't come here and look for compassion because you sure don't show any here.
Here's a bone for you Crowfarm. My parents were loaded but I NEVER asked for a penny from them. I used to have a seizure disorder. My real dad shot himself in the head. I had an abortion when I was 20. I smoke pot. My ex-husband lives upstairs. My boyfriend lives downstairs with me and we all get along.
So there's a pile of personal stuff nobody knows about. Have at it and have a great night!
posted on March 9, 2005 07:40:59 PM new
Linda says "You're still a very SICK person in my opinion". I would like second that. But since she only attacks the republicans she will have a lot of votes against this.
Thursday the Senate will vote on the Bankruptcy Bill and it will pass. To bad for the dead beat fathers who need to take responsibility for their children. I imagine that is why Ms Mornin has to work 3 jobs because of a dead beat dad. Do you condone dead beat dads crowfarm? Shouldn't they be responsible for their children instead of us. If not maybe you could find a family that needs assistance and help them. Show people you care.
Multi millionaires that won't be able to file bankruptcy on homes they don't want and can't sell. To bad for them. Let them pay taxes....like the rest of us....
posted on March 9, 2005 08:28:29 PM new
Hey Libra63, I already beat ya to it. I worked and lived in Canada for a few years and did use their health care system. It worked well for my family. I had a car accident and got a broken collar bone from it. It didn't cost me a dime to get it all fixed up.
Years ago I knew a French Canadian Antique Picker. We both had trucks that were nearly the same. I would meet him in Malone N.Y. about once every 5 or 6 weeks. He would give me a full truck and I would give him a empty truck to fill up again. It worked out well we both made money. I guess poor Libra63 doesn't think other countries have a Antique Trade. I liked Canada and its people. Thinking about the other countries I have been to I have always liked its people.
posted on March 9, 2005 11:04:50 PM new
Well to your surprise I have not lived in Canada but not to far south where we had the chance to go their many times. I think with the problems and all in the US maybe you should move back since you think everything is wonderful there. I am sure they have their problems. Yes they have free health care, but other than clean air and beautiful gardens what do they have? What is their job market like? What are some of the advantages living in Canada that you don't have here?
I am sorry to hear about your story KD. You know there is always someone who has a horrible story and to bring it to this board and keep harping on it is wrong. This is a discussion board not a personal vendetta against anyone.
posted on March 10, 2005 09:48:48 AM new
Thanks, Linda, you are right. Though had I incured those same bills for a dependent while I was between job assignments, as I was when I got hurt, I believe the same would apply.
What the hell is This White House, is that a new catch phrase for you liperals?
To answer your question, I proudly served my country and WORKED all my life paying into Social Security. After my accident, in 1998, (while klinton was in office), I had to FIGHT to get my benefits, finally resorting to hire a attorney specializing in ss benefits. Only then were they granted. If you didn't realize it, the Social Security benefits you are granted are directly related to your yearly earnings.
I filed bankruptcy in December of "98", 11 months after my accident, Social Security Disability was granted in November of "98" (that made me eligable for Medicare), the bills from the hospital didn't start comming in until July "99" once it became apparent further surgeries were no longer necessary . Once bankruptcy is filed and approved you cannot append the list to add additional debtors. Through the court I did PAY OFF my CC bills, my vehicle notes. Throughout the bankrupty I still made my property note.
The key word in my statement is WORKED. I do back President Bush, on his actions on Social Security reform.
Are you telling us that a guy like you that supports this White House's war against Social Programs used Social Programs when in need. WOW the truth does come out.
You get, what you earn, Peepa.
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
posted on March 10, 2005 10:04:57 AM new
Bear, yes you are correct. Each situation is different. I guess I was saying that if you were a healthy worker and had a wife or children whose illness HAD caused you to file bankruptcy....then whatever your insurance company didn't pay....could be erased in bankruptcy court.
And you don't owe an explanation to a fool. You're right....it's the way the system is set up....and you had/have every right to receive benefits that you've paid for all these years.
-----------------------
I suspect the liberals are going to be whining for another 4 years. We're only in the first two+ months of his second term and they're not winning any battles so the squealing is likely to continue.
Many here are continuing to show their lack of knowledge of just how things work. The dems in Congress are obstructing everything they can.
Many are seeing positive changes that are taking place. Especially in the ME. Heck even the NYT is beginning to come around about all the positive changes taking place in the ME.
The 'attack on the poorest' claimed here just isn't true. If they'd read they see the majority of bankruptcies are NOT being filed by the 'poorest'....but by the middle class. The 'truly poor' have little to protect...haven't gone on CC 'spending sprees' and have free medical coverage so no large medical bills they can't pay.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on March 10, 2005 10:58:01 AM new
I find it ironic that the three here who support privatization of Social Security via Bush's plan..... who denounce the present system.. are presently enjoying the benefits from this system or will shortly (Linda)...and feel safe knowing that they will continue to get their benefits undesturbed...
I wonder how these same three would squeal if their benefits were to stop tomorrow? How would Bear and Libra feel if they were told so sorry... no more money left...you should have prepared for your future and not relied on this insurance plan entirely to take care of you in your senior years... Would you three still be berating the liberals for their desire for social programs? But like Libra has said...who cares as long as she and her daughter get theirs.. to heck with everyone else...
posted on March 10, 2005 11:05:15 AM new
Well Maggie I would survive. I don't depend on SS so get over yourself. Now go to the SS office and find out what you would receive if you husband would die. Isn't that what you were interested in?
_________________
posted on March 10, 2005 11:10:36 AM new
No..Libra I have told you several times,(don't you read and comprehend?) I am sitting pretty in the financial department...
And it will be a long time before I apply for social security...I'll let you know when it happens, if you're still kickin by then..
posted on March 10, 2005 12:10:09 PM new
maggie - I find it ironic that the three here who support privatization of Social Security via Bush's plan.....who denounce the present system..are presently enjoying the benefits from this system or will shortly (Linda)...and feel safe knowing that they will continue to get their benefits undesturbed...
Has no bearing on me. There's currently no guarantee changes wouldn't be made under either side's administration. And I think your 'theory' is incorrect. The largest group currently opposing privatization are those OVER 55. The younger crowd supports the suggested. The middle group 45-55 are mixed.
I wonder how these same three would squeal if their benefits were to stop tomorrow?
Maybe YOU could point out to us just where ANY benefits were 'suggested' to be stop. No one is suggesting any such thing.
How would Bear and Libra feel if they were told so sorry...no more money left...you should have prepared for your future and not relied on this insurance plan entirely to take care of you in your senior years...
That's what we're concerned about for our children and our grandchildren. That what you've said might just be the truth for THEM.
Would you three still be berating the liberals for their desire for social programs?
What socia programs? SS? Yes, would be my answer. They want NO changes...they won't even come to the table to offer suggestion WHILE privatization is still be considered. No cooperation to begin discussion at all.
And if you've read/heard of ANY democrat who has offered ANY suggestion, I'd sure like to hear it.
But like Libra has said...who cares as long as she and her daughter get theirs..to heck with everyone else... Again, the twisting of what was said. There's no way HER daughter could/would EVER benefit all by herself. What would apply to her daughter would apply to all in her age group.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on March 10, 2005 12:44:50 PM new
I was merely pointing out that those who rant and rave on about the left and their socialistic views are the one's who would scream the loudest if their Medicare, Medicaid, social security disability,were taken from them...they don't give a hoot if it isn't there for the future generations..as long as they are taken care of...
Bear for instance, constantly berates the libs for their social programs, but how would he have survived after his accident without collecting disability...he turned to Social Security and used disability to claim bankruptcy and get out of paying his bills..... and by the way Bear.. I thought disability was given to those who couldn't work...I see that your mind is still alert and you are able to type on this board all day, so how is it you are considered unable to work??
In your case I think you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you...
posted on March 10, 2005 01:03:09 PM new
maggie - I was merely pointing out
What you were merely pointing out were falsehoods and 'let's pretend their going to not pay you' fantasy stories.
they don't give a hoot if it isn't there for the future generations..as long as they are taken care of...
Again MORE of you delusions maggie. You don't know how we feel....you're putting your own 'twist' on how you INCORRECTLY ASSUME we feel. Just because you say it....doesn't make it true. It's YOUR own delusion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on March 10, 2005 02:48:57 PM new
Libra:Sorry bigpeepa I am already collecting SS and will until I die unless I live to be over a hundred and heaven forbid I better not live that long. What they do will not reflect on me at all. Don't be to sad. I really don't care if there is anything left for you but I do care about my daughter.
Maggie:[i]they don't give a hoot if it isn't there for the future generations..as long as they are taken care of...[/]
Linda:[i]Again MORE of you delusions maggie. You don't know how we feel....you're putting your own 'twist' on how you INCORRECTLY ASSUME we feel. Just because you say it....doesn't make it true. It's YOUR own delusion.[i/]
No, Linda..not my delusions..Libra's words above are straight from the horses mouth!
posted on March 10, 2005 03:24:06 PM new
Nope, maggie that doesn't cut the mustard.
You've totally avoided mentioning/posting what peepa had said to Libra FIRST. She was defending herself by saying she's already getting SS benefits - nothing's to her advantage should these changes be made....but her concerns are for her daughter being protected under SS.
Twist away....
--------
And here's an op I agree with on the SS subject:
Talking about SS being like a pyramid scheme.
Meanwhile, political operatives are having a field day dipping into the coffers, essentially robbing from one citizen in order to purchase the loyalty of another. It is perhaps the biggest deception of the twentieth century to portray Social Security surpluses as anything other than a supplemental income tax, further burdening the citizenry while enabling big-government liberal Democrats from both parties to perpetuate their "business as usual."
Thus, the phony outrage among liberals, intent on maintaining the system in its present form, offers proof of their real loyalties. And politicians who piously suggest another tax hike as some sort of corrective action are merely showing themselves to be willing to continue the theft, not only from this generation, but from future generations, until such time that the public wakes up to the sham.
Such underhanded tactics are the lifeblood of liberalism, which on the one hand publicly reviles the evils of capitalism while on the other hand, continually seeks to solidify its access to the lion's share of the fruits. Is it any wonder that liberals vehemently oppose revamping the system into a form that would allow average people some measure of independence, and would eventually force the system to become honest and accountable?
Perhaps the common citizens, particularly those who rely heavily on Social Security for their sustenance, can be forgiven for their anxiety. But those politicians echoing such alarmist rhetoric are either grossly incompetent of the fiscal reality, or shamefully disingenuous and willing to stoke the fears of their constituents in order to keep them in line.
Among the worst collaborators in this ruse is the American Association of Retired Persons, an organization with a fundamental necessity to maintain its symbiotic tie to the governmental status quo. The AARP thrives on the backs of frightened and dependent members, and therefore works to ensure they stay that way.
That is why it cannot sanction any Bush plan, no matter how favorable to future generations, or how thoroughly it protects present recipients from any adverse effects, if such a plan holds even the tiniest possibility of allowing them to disentangle themselves from the debilitating web of dependence on government.
Every pyramid scheme in existence requires the inclusion of a "bottom tier" of people whose destiny it is to be robbed blind, in order to enrich those above them. Social Security is no different.
In the private sector, such schemes are considered criminal. How much more criminal is it for the government to continually subjugate present and future working Americans by fleecing them in this manner?
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200503/COM20050310b.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 10, 2005 03:28 PM ]
posted on March 10, 2005 04:01:14 PM new
mag, if you had had someone read the proposal to you, you would have learned a portion of monies paid into the system would be for disability insurance, (replacing the current SSD / SSI).
I am sitting pretty in the financial department...
From you other posts don't you mean "I am sitting pretty on the financial department..."
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
posted on March 10, 2005 04:43:30 PM new
Sorry Linda...to use your own words.. just because you say it one way doesn't make it true..LOL
You can twist and turn as much as you like, but Libra's words ring out as clear as a bell..
Bear....anyway you have me sitting, I will not be relying on Social Security in my old age. And by the way.. I don't begrudge you yours..
posted on March 10, 2005 06:35:37 PM new
Senate Passes Bankruptcy Bill Making It Harder to Shed Debts
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate passed legislation Thursday making it easier for banks, retailers, credit card companies and other creditors to recoup some money they're owed by many of the 1.5 million people who file for bankruptcy every year.
Eighteen Democrats and the Senate's lone independent joined Republicans in approving the bill on a 74-25 vote. It goes to the House next month and onto President Bush, who made it a priority after the GOP increased its majorities in the election last fall.
"I applaud the strong bipartisan vote in the Senate to curb abuses of the bankruptcy system," Bush said in a statement. "Reforming the system with this common sense approach, more Americans - especially lower-income Americans - will have greater access to credit."
Lenders had been pushing the legislation for eight years. They argued too many people with ability to repay at least a portion of the money they owe were walking away from all their debts under current law.
"Those who can pay their bills should pay their bills. That's the American way," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
Democrats had succeeded in blocking the legislation year after year. They argued the changes advocated by Republicans would keep people who are overwhelmed by medical costs or loss of a job hopelessly in debt the rest of their lives.
"It will have a real impact on real people all over this country," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
Over the past two weeks, Republicans knocked down Democratic attempts to ease the impact of the legislation on people facing huge debts they cannot pay, including single parents, the unemployed and the ill.
Wall Street investment bankers won a provision that will enable the same firm to work for a company both before and after it files for bankruptcy. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman William Donaldson opposed the measure; he said it would further undermine investor confidence already shaken by the Enron, WorldCom and other corporate scandals.
Supporters of the bill said bankruptcy often was the last refuge of gamblers, impulsive shoppers, divorced or separated fathers avoiding child support, and multimillionaires - often celebrities - who buy mansions in states with liberal homestead exemptions to shelter assets from creditors.
Each year, somewhere between 30,000 and 210,000 people - from 3.5 percent to 20 percent of those who currently dissolve their debts in bankruptcy - would be disqualified from doing so under the legislation, according to American Bankruptcy Institute estimates. The institute is a group of bankruptcy judges, lawyers and other experts.
The legislation would set up an income-based test for measuring a debtor's ability to repay debts. It would require people in bankruptcy to pay for credit counseling and stiffen some legal requirements for debtors in the bankruptcy process.
Under the new income test, those with insufficient assets or income could still file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which if approved by a judge, erases debts entirely after certain assets are forfeited. But those with income above the state's median income who can pay at least $6,000 over five years - $100 a month - would be forced into Chapter 13, where a judge would then order a repayment plan.
About 70 percent of the people who file for bankruptcy now do so under Chapter 7, while the other 30 percent or so fall under Chapter 13, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute.
Most of the Chapter 7 filers "don't have the income to fund a (repayment) plan that won't fail," said Samuel Gerdano, the group's executive director.
Under current law, a bankruptcy judge determines under which chapter of the bankruptcy code a person falls.
The bill is the second piece of pro-business legislation that Congress is acting quickly on this year. Last month it sent him a bill placing most large multistate class action lawsuits under federal court jurisdiction, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to join together and win multimillion-dollar judgments in state courts.
---
On the Net:
Information on the bill, S. 256: http://thomas.loc.gov/
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
posted on March 10, 2005 07:30:24 PM new
Linda K, What Libra said to me is that as long as she and her daughter got their SS checks she didn't care if I got mine.
Plus Linda in the past I have asked you a couple of direct questions that you never responded to. Other people have also asked you questions without your reply.
