2005 bankruptcy laws helped fuel the forclosure wave

[Truthmatters]

U.S. mortgage meltdown linked to 2005 bankruptcy law - Kansas City Star


Before Congress passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, households could erase their unsecured debts by filing for Chapter 7 liquidation. That freed up income that distressed homeowners could use to make mortgage payments.

The new law, however, forced better-off households seeking bankruptcy protection to file under Chapter 13. That chapter requires homeowners to continue paying their unsecured lenders.

In other words, say the Fed researchers, cash-strapped homeowners who might have saved their homes by filing Chapter 7 are now much more likely to face foreclosure.

 

[sealybobo]

U.S. mortgage meltdown linked to 2005 bankruptcy law - Kansas City Star


Before Congress passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, households could erase their unsecured debts by filing for Chapter 7 liquidation. That freed up income that distressed homeowners could use to make mortgage payments.

The new law, however, forced better-off households seeking bankruptcy protection to file under Chapter 13. That chapter requires homeowners to continue paying their unsecured lenders.

In other words, say the Fed researchers, cash-strapped homeowners who might have saved their homes by filing Chapter 7 are now much more likely to face foreclosure.

Excellent find Truthmatters.

There are so many things the GOP did from 2000-2006 that caused the mess we are in. It is nice to see one I forgot about.

I remember back in 2004-2006 I would hear weekly on NPR or Air America all the bad laws the GOP were passing. Tax breaks to companies going overseas, making it harder for average citizens to go bankrupt but making it easier for the rich to do it.

Experts would warn what could/might happen because of these policies, and no one cared or believed. They told me I was just being a whiner.

That's why I laugh when today they say it was Carter that caused this mess, or they suggest that they know how to clean up the mess they created.

Just like you can't run government if you don't believe in government, you can't fix a problem if you don't believe there is a problem.

 

[editec]

U.S. mortgage meltdown linked to 2005 bankruptcy law - Kansas City Star


Before Congress passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, households could erase their unsecured debts by filing for Chapter 7 liquidation. That freed up income that distressed homeowners could use to make mortgage payments.

The new law, however, forced better-off households seeking bankruptcy protection to file under Chapter 13. That chapter requires homeowners to continue paying their unsecured lenders.

In other words, say the Fed researchers, cash-strapped homeowners who might have saved their homes by filing Chapter 7 are now much more likely to face foreclosure.

Yup!

And which well known DEMOCRAT was largely responsible for that law changing?

 

[Paulie]

Yup!

And which well known DEMOCRAT was largely responsible for that law changing?

Oh come on, don't knock her down like that Ed, she's in her glory!

That's just cruel

 

[Ravi]

Yup!

And which well known DEMOCRAT was largely responsible for that law changing?

Chuck Grassley? Tom Delay? George W. Bush? Oh wait, they aren't Dems.

 

[Paulie]

Yeah, and Biden was probably a staunch opponent.

 

[Ravi]

Yeah, and Biden was probably a staunch opponent.

lol, I've never liked Biden's coziness with the credit industry. But this is really a Republican baby. Clinton actually vetoed it, IIRC, and the Repubs kept introducing it until they got it passed.

 

[jillian]

Yeah, and Biden was probably a staunch opponent.

Actually this was one of the votes on which I disagreed with Biden. But his home state is Delaware...home of the banking industry. Not like he had a huge amount of choice.

But it really was a repub travesty.

 

[Paulie]

Actually this was one of the votes on which I disagreed with Biden. But his home state is Delaware...home of the banking industry. Not like he had a huge amount of choice.

But it really was a repub travesty.

No choice? His choices were clear. Protect debtors or protect bankers. He chose bankers to keep the campaign cash flowing. That shows how much he really cares about the middle class, huh?

Just another typical politician. Nothing special about him, except now he's a heartbeat away from being the decider.

 

[Paulie]

lol, I've never liked Biden's coziness with the credit industry. But this is really a Republican baby. Clinton actually vetoed it, IIRC, and the Repubs kept introducing it until they got it passed.

The irony doesn't go unnoticed, though, when a democrat brings up a questionable bill wholly supported by the person they chose to be number 2.

 

[Ravi]

The irony doesn't go unnoticed, though, when a democrat brings up a questionable bill wholly supported by the person they chose to be number 2.

Yep, you wouldn't have caught me doing it.

 

[jillian]

No choice? His choices were clear. Protect debtors or protect bankers. He chose bankers to keep the campaign cash flowing. That shows how much he really cares about the middle class, huh?

Just another typical politician. Nothing special about him, except now he's a heartbeat away from being the decider.

no one votes in a way that will make it impossible for them to win re-election.

Sorry... most politicians aren't that noble.

And again... was a repub bill that the dems largely voted against. But whatever.

 

[Paulie]

no one votes in a way that will make it impossible for them to win re-election.

Sorry... most politicians aren't that noble.

And again... was a repub bill that the dems largely voted against. But whatever.

Ron Paul votes in spite of typical Republican interests, and yet he continues to be reelected.

Politicians don't HAVE to pander to corporate america. They only need to establish trust with their constituents through honesty and integrity, something a majority of politicians simply don't have.

And that's nice that most Dems didn't agree, but the most notable one who did agree was chosen as VP. So it's not worth bitching, else the irony becomes quite apparent.

 

[sealybobo]

Chuck Grassley? Tom Delay? George W. Bush? Oh wait, they aren't Dems.

Robin Hayes? Jack Abramoff? Bob Nay? Phil Gramm?

Oh wait....

 

[Truthmatters]

S. 256 [109th]: Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us)

Biden fucked up then huh?

This law was a bad law even if he voted for it right?

Why in the hell should it not be mentioned.

 

[jillian]

Ron Paul votes in spite of typical Republican interests, and yet he continues to be reelected.

Politicians don't HAVE to pander to corporate america. They only need to establish trust with their constituents through honesty and integrity, something a majority of politicians simply don't have.

And that's nice that most Dems didn't agree, but the most notable one who did agree was chosen as VP. So it's not worth bitching, else the irony becomes quite apparent.

No. Ron Paul doesn't... same as he takes earmarks all the while railing against them and talks about term limits but kept running for re-election.

He's a P-O-L-I-T-I-C-I-A-N

 

[Paulie]

No. Ron Paul doesn't... same as he takes earmarks all the while railing against them and talks about term limits but kept running for re-election.

He's a P-O-L-I-T-I-C-I-A-N

Paul has repeatedly stated his justification for earmarks. He places an earmark in a bill that he votes NO on, Jill. Check his record, as I'm sure you probably haven't. His reasoning is that if a bill passes that he voted no on, the earmarks he placed in there are in the interest of fairness to his district. They have just as much a right to that tax money as any other district, in a logical sense. He also doesn't embed them within lengthy text, he clearly announces the earmark and makes it no secret. How ironic that he would vote no on a bill that he would place an earmark in. It's a matter of principle to him. It's called representing your district and your constituents.

As far as the term limits, he advocates MANDATORY term limits, for EVERYONE. If he were to not play by the rules that everyone else plays by, he would get walked over and his time in Congress would be short lived, without ever accomplishing his goals. He wants mandatory term limits, and he was the first one to ever introduce such a bill. If he were to voluntarily walk away, that certainly doesn't help his cause very much considering hardly anyone supports the idea, does it?

This is to say nothing of him not taking the taxpayer funded pension. That is his statement. If congressmen didn't receive the lucrative taxpayer benefits, they probably wouldn't be making a career out of serving.

What ELSE you got...

 

[garyd]

Yeah you keep trying to blame this largely democratic fiasco on the Republicans. By the time people file for bankruptcy they largely don't have any cash to spare anyway. If you can't pay an 80 dollar a month minimum on four or five credit cards tell me where you are going to get the money to pay a $1000 dollar a month mortgage?

 

[editec]

no one votes in a way that will make it impossible for them to win re-election.

Sorry... most politicians aren't that noble.

And again... was a repub bill that the dems largely voted against. But whatever.

MBNA was, for a brief time, the largest overall campiagn donating organization (though their employees, I mean) in america.

If you people check that time, most of you in most states, and in both parties will find that MBNA paid for that change in the bankrupsy laws nearly singlehanded.

This vile anti-working class bill had nothing to do with getting relected and everything to do with getting damned near every pol in America campaign contributions, folks.