Can anyone tell me when the Right Not to be Offended was written into some law? Because, I really need to know what the penalties are...."don't do the crime if you can't do the time" and all.
Everyone claiming Imus was an ass are 1) not saying anything new, and 2) need to grow up. "Mommy, he made fun of me. He called me a NAME...." whiners.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Stinkin culture
Name one country other than the United States that if it ceased to exist today, would be missed tomorrow.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Moderate + Mainstream
I am right of center....fiscally. I am left of center....socially.
I believe that government is the worst use of our money. It is a necessary evil with regard to those things it was originally empowered to do. It has however, stepped into many things it does not belong in. The less money it has, the less meddling it does.
I am pro-abortion...for the first two trimesters....then opposed on virtually any grounds.
I am against a single-payer medical system. I have family in England and I have had medical care in Canada. Talk to the average person in either country and they will literally spit their hatred of their medical systems. I am willing to support a government program of vouchers for medical care AND schools.
I am pro-education, but anti-teachers unions. One of the worst features of our educational system is tenure. It should be abolished. I am opposed to unions in general. My father was a shop steward. In Chicago. I have seen first hand the terrible toll unions can inflict on workers and businesses.
I am pro-military. I served, my father served, my brother served (and retired from) and my nephew is currently serving. My support is total. (Did I support the actions inAbu-Grab, no, don't be stupid)
I am pro-1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and so on amendment rights. I am anti-ACLU.
My positions are MODERATE. They are shared by the VAST majority of Americans.
However, our media - all of it - has reached a point where people on the left can not tell a moderate liberal position and where people on the right can not tell a moderate conservative position. Increasingly, the only voices you hear on TV, cable or radio are absolute conservatives and absolute liberals. I chose the adjective absolute instead of far-left/right because someone doesn't have to be far-either to be an absolutist. Victoria holds virtually no conservative positions (I have just sat here for 5 minutes to try and think of one with no luck) but I wouldn't call her far-left.
It has become "normal" for the far-right/left to eat their own. Code Pink camping out on Pelosi's stoop? Air American couldn't espouse a moderate position if it's life depended on it. Ann Coulter has become a parody of herself. The religious right sees Satan in every picture/video/liberal.
People are tuning out media. Networks are losing viewers (they are not going to cable); newspapers are dead - momentum is all they have going for them right now. The average radio or cable show has a couple million listeners/viewers....many shared. (The Air America crowd watchesOberman, the Rush crowd watches O'Reilly)
People of good intentions on the left get shouted down by the right because if the right gives an inch, the left takes a mile. People of good intentions on the right get shouted down by the left because if the left gives an inch, the right takes a mile. No one wants to give the left/right any more ammunition than they already have so the moderates shut up and leave the field to the fringe - now called "mainstream"
Rush has said that moderates do not get anything done. Only those that take a stand firmly Conservative(Liberal) accomplish great things. He might be right about great things, but every day, every where, moderates stock theWalMart shelves, deliver the gas to the stations, serve in our military and serve in the soup kitchens.
I am proud to be a moderate. Someday, we might even elect one.
I believe that government is the worst use of our money. It is a necessary evil with regard to those things it was originally empowered to do. It has however, stepped into many things it does not belong in. The less money it has, the less meddling it does.
I am pro-abortion...for the first two trimesters....then opposed on virtually any grounds.
I am against a single-payer medical system. I have family in England and I have had medical care in Canada. Talk to the average person in either country and they will literally spit their hatred of their medical systems. I am willing to support a government program of vouchers for medical care AND schools.
I am pro-education, but anti-teachers unions. One of the worst features of our educational system is tenure. It should be abolished. I am opposed to unions in general. My father was a shop steward. In Chicago. I have seen first hand the terrible toll unions can inflict on workers and businesses.
I am pro-military. I served, my father served, my brother served (and retired from) and my nephew is currently serving. My support is total. (Did I support the actions inAbu-Grab, no, don't be stupid)
I am pro-1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and so on amendment rights. I am anti-ACLU.
My positions are MODERATE. They are shared by the VAST majority of Americans.
However, our media - all of it - has reached a point where people on the left can not tell a moderate liberal position and where people on the right can not tell a moderate conservative position. Increasingly, the only voices you hear on TV, cable or radio are absolute conservatives and absolute liberals. I chose the adjective absolute instead of far-left/right because someone doesn't have to be far-either to be an absolutist. Victoria holds virtually no conservative positions (I have just sat here for 5 minutes to try and think of one with no luck) but I wouldn't call her far-left.
It has become "normal" for the far-right/left to eat their own. Code Pink camping out on Pelosi's stoop? Air American couldn't espouse a moderate position if it's life depended on it. Ann Coulter has become a parody of herself. The religious right sees Satan in every picture/video/liberal.
People are tuning out media. Networks are losing viewers (they are not going to cable); newspapers are dead - momentum is all they have going for them right now. The average radio or cable show has a couple million listeners/viewers....many shared. (The Air America crowd watchesOberman, the Rush crowd watches O'Reilly)
People of good intentions on the left get shouted down by the right because if the right gives an inch, the left takes a mile. People of good intentions on the right get shouted down by the left because if the left gives an inch, the right takes a mile. No one wants to give the left/right any more ammunition than they already have so the moderates shut up and leave the field to the fringe - now called "mainstream"
Rush has said that moderates do not get anything done. Only those that take a stand firmly Conservative(Liberal) accomplish great things. He might be right about great things, but every day, every where, moderates stock theWalMart shelves, deliver the gas to the stations, serve in our military and serve in the soup kitchens.
I am proud to be a moderate. Someday, we might even elect one.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Top Picks - Science Fiction
My top picks for Science Fiction, book
1. Battlefield Earth, by L. Ron Hubbard (say whatever you want about Scientology, the book is a first rate read)
2 Jumper by Stephen Gould. I spent months after first reading it thinking about what I would do! I decided to re-read it!
3. White Wing, by Gordon Kendall. A complete surprise and worth packing in your favorite suitcase after reading it...because it is worth reading every time.
4. Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card. I didn't know, til Ender did and easily the best of the series.
5. There are two series, any one from which is a top five:
Sten series (8 books) by Chris Bunch and Alan Cole, I still tell the jokes.
Honor Harrington series (10? books) by David Weber. Is it luck if you pick the right club, call the shot, land it exactly, and sink it from 100 yds?
I just finished reading Old Man's War based on a blog recommendation and it is already a top ten. After another read sometime late this year, it will probably move up some.
1. Battlefield Earth, by L. Ron Hubbard (say whatever you want about Scientology, the book is a first rate read)
2 Jumper by Stephen Gould. I spent months after first reading it thinking about what I would do! I decided to re-read it!
3. White Wing, by Gordon Kendall. A complete surprise and worth packing in your favorite suitcase after reading it...because it is worth reading every time.
4. Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card. I didn't know, til Ender did and easily the best of the series.
5. There are two series, any one from which is a top five:
Sten series (8 books) by Chris Bunch and Alan Cole, I still tell the jokes.
Honor Harrington series (10? books) by David Weber. Is it luck if you pick the right club, call the shot, land it exactly, and sink it from 100 yds?
I just finished reading Old Man's War based on a blog recommendation and it is already a top ten. After another read sometime late this year, it will probably move up some.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Mortgage Fraud
One of the questions swirling around bankruptcy attorney circles is: where is the fraud?
We are seeing people facing mortgages where the monthly payments are increasing 40% or more in a 2-2.5 year period. Chapter 13 bankruptcy trustees are beginning to require proposed plans deal with the mortgage payments at their highest possible level rather than what the loan currently calls for.
It started me thinking. Everyone (that supported bankruptcy reform) is going blame the consumer for agreeing to mortgages that they had no chance of ever repaying. The consumer is going to blame the mortgage originator that told them they could refinance before the adjustments started. The mortgage originators are going to offer, the consumer knew the risks...of course, we are watching mortgage lenders flee the scene like cockroaches.
A typical bond is sold based on the interest rate earned. Because the rate of the bond is fixed, as interest rates move, the price moves inversely. Mortgage back securities (MBS) operate in a generally similar way. Although there are many more factors and risks involved, the issue is "what is the rate of return"?
For a good overview of the MBS market, check out this Fannie Mae page.
That said, let me share some numbers.
A $200,000 loan, 3/27 ARM, initial rate 8.5%, index 9.5%+LIBOR, 6 month adj, 11.5% initial cap, initial monthly payment $1,537.83.
Based on current LIBOR, if this loan was issued in 2004(it was), then on Jan 1, 2009, the payment will be $2,401.51, a 56% increase. This does not include any amounts for, or changes in, property taxes or insurance.
If the loan goes to maturity, the effective rate over the term would be 10.48%
Ignoring all the risk factors, what would the basis for purchase price of this loan be?
The 10.48% yield?
The 8.5% initial yield?
The 9.52% index yield?
Assuming a Fannie Mae MBS was priced to yield 6.5% on a pool of 1000 of these?
Value of 10.48% yield $322,557.53 x 1000
Value of 8.5% yield $261,538.46 x 1000
Value of 9.52% yield $292,923.08 x 1000
If I borrowed $2,000,000 from you at 5.5% and loaned it to 10 people at the 3/27 ARM rate indicated. The potential profit on reselling the loans in 90-120 days is enormous. Of course defaults and early repayments seriously affect yields...so as a buyer of the MBS, I might be a little miffed if the underlying loans crash and burn.
The scenario I see unfolding (originally) is that as more money is made, it chases more and more potential loans with huge index spreads...this would drive DOWN the initial interest rates as lenders compete. As the market begins to crash (when there are no more people obtaining loans (you have already dreged the bottom), then the interest rates are going to climb to ...the index yield, 9.52%, at least.
What happens to a bond price when the interest rate climbs 3000 basis points?
Care to answer Fannie Mae? Chairman Bernanke?
There may be no interest rate acceptable to the market for these securities. If that happens, the MBS market will crash and the largest holder of MBS is Fannie Mae.
Bernanke may have no good options to deal with the situation. Large banks and securities firms will have no choice but to purchase the MBS originators at losses to protect their own positions as large scale bankruptcies would all but eliminate funding for the MANY hundreds of billions of loans resetting with millions of borrowers unable to qualify for a standard loan.
Let me be a scare-monger. It is possible that as many as 90% of ARMs sold in the last 2-3 years will default eventually.
And who do you think will be blamed?
We are seeing people facing mortgages where the monthly payments are increasing 40% or more in a 2-2.5 year period. Chapter 13 bankruptcy trustees are beginning to require proposed plans deal with the mortgage payments at their highest possible level rather than what the loan currently calls for.
It started me thinking. Everyone (that supported bankruptcy reform) is going blame the consumer for agreeing to mortgages that they had no chance of ever repaying. The consumer is going to blame the mortgage originator that told them they could refinance before the adjustments started. The mortgage originators are going to offer, the consumer knew the risks...of course, we are watching mortgage lenders flee the scene like cockroaches.
A typical bond is sold based on the interest rate earned. Because the rate of the bond is fixed, as interest rates move, the price moves inversely. Mortgage back securities (MBS) operate in a generally similar way. Although there are many more factors and risks involved, the issue is "what is the rate of return"?
For a good overview of the MBS market, check out this Fannie Mae page.
That said, let me share some numbers.
A $200,000 loan, 3/27 ARM, initial rate 8.5%, index 9.5%+LIBOR, 6 month adj, 11.5% initial cap, initial monthly payment $1,537.83.
Based on current LIBOR, if this loan was issued in 2004(it was), then on Jan 1, 2009, the payment will be $2,401.51, a 56% increase. This does not include any amounts for, or changes in, property taxes or insurance.
If the loan goes to maturity, the effective rate over the term would be 10.48%
Ignoring all the risk factors, what would the basis for purchase price of this loan be?
The 10.48% yield?
The 8.5% initial yield?
The 9.52% index yield?
Assuming a Fannie Mae MBS was priced to yield 6.5% on a pool of 1000 of these?
Value of 10.48% yield $322,557.53 x 1000
Value of 8.5% yield $261,538.46 x 1000
Value of 9.52% yield $292,923.08 x 1000
If I borrowed $2,000,000 from you at 5.5% and loaned it to 10 people at the 3/27 ARM rate indicated. The potential profit on reselling the loans in 90-120 days is enormous. Of course defaults and early repayments seriously affect yields...so as a buyer of the MBS, I might be a little miffed if the underlying loans crash and burn.
The scenario I see unfolding (originally) is that as more money is made, it chases more and more potential loans with huge index spreads...this would drive DOWN the initial interest rates as lenders compete. As the market begins to crash (when there are no more people obtaining loans (you have already dreged the bottom), then the interest rates are going to climb to ...the index yield, 9.52%, at least.
What happens to a bond price when the interest rate climbs 3000 basis points?
Care to answer Fannie Mae? Chairman Bernanke?
There may be no interest rate acceptable to the market for these securities. If that happens, the MBS market will crash and the largest holder of MBS is Fannie Mae.
Bernanke may have no good options to deal with the situation. Large banks and securities firms will have no choice but to purchase the MBS originators at losses to protect their own positions as large scale bankruptcies would all but eliminate funding for the MANY hundreds of billions of loans resetting with millions of borrowers unable to qualify for a standard loan.
Let me be a scare-monger. It is possible that as many as 90% of ARMs sold in the last 2-3 years will default eventually.
And who do you think will be blamed?
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Lying
I want to say something about lying. It seems to be happening more frequently.
People are getting up in front of cameras and opening their mouths and what is coming out is so blatantly a lie that you'd expect everyone to audibly gasp. But it doesn't happen. No one calls them on their lie. No one questions their lie. Lies. Flat out, clear cut, lies.
My problem is that EVERYONE lies a little. For a long time I tried really hard to either tell the truth or shut up. But little things happen: the boss is in but doesn't want to talk to someone "sorry, not available". I am pretty good at avoiding big lies...one of the reasons people tend to ask me for my opinion is they trust what comes out, even if they don't like what they hear.
We expect politicians to lie. It is part of the job description. Still, John Edwards talks about two Americas while building a 28,000 sq ft mansion; Al Gore talks about global warming while flying in private jets; the war on drugs is apparently now the war on those fighting drugs; "we support the troops"; Sandy Berger forgot about the documents in his underwear; Libby was covering for Cheney; Joe Wilson was set up;
Don't get me started on American Idol or the Oscars...
We are well down a spiraling slide of dishonesty...and I can't see anyway to stop it.
People are getting up in front of cameras and opening their mouths and what is coming out is so blatantly a lie that you'd expect everyone to audibly gasp. But it doesn't happen. No one calls them on their lie. No one questions their lie. Lies. Flat out, clear cut, lies.
My problem is that EVERYONE lies a little. For a long time I tried really hard to either tell the truth or shut up. But little things happen: the boss is in but doesn't want to talk to someone "sorry, not available". I am pretty good at avoiding big lies...one of the reasons people tend to ask me for my opinion is they trust what comes out, even if they don't like what they hear.
We expect politicians to lie. It is part of the job description. Still, John Edwards talks about two Americas while building a 28,000 sq ft mansion; Al Gore talks about global warming while flying in private jets; the war on drugs is apparently now the war on those fighting drugs; "we support the troops"; Sandy Berger forgot about the documents in his underwear; Libby was covering for Cheney; Joe Wilson was set up;
Don't get me started on American Idol or the Oscars...
We are well down a spiraling slide of dishonesty...and I can't see anyway to stop it.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Seethuma
Research in this country is in serious need of assistance. If you believe that basic research needs more attention and you have a research bankground, I would be interested in your opinions. By invitation only.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Blog Talk Radio
A new service is available for just about anyone to host their own podcast/radio show. I will be hosting my first show today at 9:30 central. Tune in live (call in is available) or listen later!
Ketsup or Catch Up
Ketsup or Catch Up
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Global Defrosting
Can someone tell me what is the correct average mean temperature for Earth? Come on, anyone? I mean, if EVERYONE believes that the Earth is getting warmer, then they should know if that is a good thing or not. Right? Just because the Earth is getting warmer in and of itself doesn't mean anything good or bad. No?
If the average mean temperature of Earth should be 4 degrees higher than it is now, then the warming is a good thing and we should help accelerate it! If it is 4 degrees lower than it is now, then we need to kill off about 4 billion people to turn the tide...anything else would be throwing ice cubes at a bonfire.
I would like to offer a different way of thinking about the rising temperature, from on now, I am going to call it global defrosting
If the average mean temperature of Earth should be 4 degrees higher than it is now, then the warming is a good thing and we should help accelerate it! If it is 4 degrees lower than it is now, then we need to kill off about 4 billion people to turn the tide...anything else would be throwing ice cubes at a bonfire.
I would like to offer a different way of thinking about the rising temperature, from on now, I am going to call it global defrosting
ALERT - Vehicle Repossession in Wisconsin
A major change in Wisconsin law now allows auto loan lenders to repossess a vehicle 15 days after a notice of default has been sent (there is some question about it being 15 days from receipt of the notice but that has not been tested).
If you are someone that does not open bills until you can pay them, you might have a notice stating your are in default. You could walk out your door and find your vehicle gone with little recourse.
This is called self-help repossession and is VERY different from the previous requirement to obtain a judicial judgment.
If you are someone that does not open bills until you can pay them, you might have a notice stating your are in default. You could walk out your door and find your vehicle gone with little recourse.
This is called self-help repossession and is VERY different from the previous requirement to obtain a judicial judgment.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Is this the party you want?
I know bankruptcy reform gets a lot of support from conservatives espousing personal responsibility but what happens when someone is irresponsible (of just plain stupid) and ends up with enough debt to choke a horse? Debtor's prison? The Republicans have become a special interest group for corporate interests. I do not mean that in the same sense that the looney left states it, but what is good for GM is NOT necessarily good for America anymore, as Toyota is teaching many former union workers.
Immigration helps this country in dozens of ways and as the first born of immigrants, I STRONGLY support immigration. The pandering...no, the selling out of America to ILLEGAL immigrants is as bad as selling out the troops. I don't understand why Bush and the Republicans can't see that.
How many people that complained about people like me in November (that refused to vote Republican because of their behavior despite disliking everything about the Democrats) are watching in abject horror at Republicans defecting on the GWOT, taxes, minimum wage, immigration?
The political class...oh wait, there is not supposed to be a political class....needs to be sent packing and if the current behavior doesn't encourage more of the base to leave Republican politicians flapping in the wind, then we have truly lost the base.
Immigration helps this country in dozens of ways and as the first born of immigrants, I STRONGLY support immigration. The pandering...no, the selling out of America to ILLEGAL immigrants is as bad as selling out the troops. I don't understand why Bush and the Republicans can't see that.
How many people that complained about people like me in November (that refused to vote Republican because of their behavior despite disliking everything about the Democrats) are watching in abject horror at Republicans defecting on the GWOT, taxes, minimum wage, immigration?
The political class...oh wait, there is not supposed to be a political class....needs to be sent packing and if the current behavior doesn't encourage more of the base to leave Republican politicians flapping in the wind, then we have truly lost the base.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
The Pledge
If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.
If you agree or support this pledge, please join in signing it here
Saturday, January 06, 2007
The Crusades
Recently read a post about the potential of Al Gore getting involved in the 2008 Presidential race. Also, so talk of Newt doing so. My one and only response at this time to such?
To the Rescue: The Knights in Tarnished Armor.
To the Rescue: The Knights in Tarnished Armor.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
A final tally
Foreclosures in my area(6 counties) finished the year up 30.24%. Two counties were over 50% (Dane 57.11%, Jefferson, 54.61%). Over the last 5 years, foreclosures area wide are up over 66%. I am undecided if I will review all 2,188 foreclosures to determine their outcomes. In the past, more than half of all foreclosure filings resulted in the loss of the home.
There is no indication that the rate of foreclosures is slowing at all.
There is no indication that the rate of foreclosures is slowing at all.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Civilization
Over the holiday I got caught up in a special about the origins of humans. All the other issues aside, the thing that caught my attention was a researchers finding that a people in Asia were descendants of the original migration out of Africa. Specifically, the people were living in a village of huts made of mud and vegetation. 25,000 years of these people living in that area had produced, mud huts.
How many Muslim nations (nations where the majority of the population are Muslim) have provided ANY significant contribution to civilization in the last...200-300 years? (Don't be pathetic by noting civilization would not exist without Middle East oil. Such a contribution could have been made fish in the North Sea also...)
Except for the mineral deposits found under their feet, would civilization be any worse off if they all just ceased to exist? I AM NOT SUGGESTING ANYTHING. I note that advancements in medicine, technology, biology and society (democratic institutions) have ALL come from areas other than those dominated by Islam.
It is not enough to look at the appalling lack of advancement in many parts of the world without noting the dangerous situation happening in the US.
The time period indicated in the first paragraph was 1990-2000. The quotes came from this report.
My first question is: what kind of jobs are these millions of uneducated Americans holding? Any? Minimum wage? Second question: are illegals taking the jobs these Americans would normally hold?
In some areas, the United States and other western nations have stopped advancements so that financial resources could be spent on the poorer in our societies. NASA is a prime example. "Why spend billions in space when we could use that money to build new schools!?" Apparently, the new schools are not helping as many as 1/3 of the students entering them.
Civilization is being drained of its ability to move forward by the demands of some to "lift up" those lower on the ladder. Civilization is being held back from advancing by the demands of those that contribute the least to sustaining it.
It is time we acknowledge that some people are going to be left behind. That attempts to minimize their numbers is a waste of resources.
How many Muslim nations (nations where the majority of the population are Muslim) have provided ANY significant contribution to civilization in the last...200-300 years? (Don't be pathetic by noting civilization would not exist without Middle East oil. Such a contribution could have been made fish in the North Sea also...)
Except for the mineral deposits found under their feet, would civilization be any worse off if they all just ceased to exist? I AM NOT SUGGESTING ANYTHING. I note that advancements in medicine, technology, biology and society (democratic institutions) have ALL come from areas other than those dominated by Islam.
It is not enough to look at the appalling lack of advancement in many parts of the world without noting the dangerous situation happening in the US.
Over the last decade, between 347,000 and 544,000 10th- through 12th-grade students left school each year without successfully completing a high school program (table C1). Status dropout rates represent the proportion of young people ages 16 through 24 who are out of school and who have not earned a high school credential. Status rates are higher than event rates because they include all dropouts in this age range, regardless of when they last attended school.
In October 2000, some 3.8 million young adults were not enrolled in a high school program and had not completed high school. These youths accounted for 10.9 percent of the 34.6 million 16- through 24-year-olds in the United States in 2000 (table A, figure A, and table 3). As noted with event rates, status rates declined from the early 1970s into the late 1980s, but since then have remained stable (figure 2 and table B5).
The time period indicated in the first paragraph was 1990-2000. The quotes came from this report.
My first question is: what kind of jobs are these millions of uneducated Americans holding? Any? Minimum wage? Second question: are illegals taking the jobs these Americans would normally hold?
In some areas, the United States and other western nations have stopped advancements so that financial resources could be spent on the poorer in our societies. NASA is a prime example. "Why spend billions in space when we could use that money to build new schools!?" Apparently, the new schools are not helping as many as 1/3 of the students entering them.
Civilization is being drained of its ability to move forward by the demands of some to "lift up" those lower on the ladder. Civilization is being held back from advancing by the demands of those that contribute the least to sustaining it.
It is time we acknowledge that some people are going to be left behind. That attempts to minimize their numbers is a waste of resources.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Self reliance
Over the weekend I watched the Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. I read the books decades ago, own the DVDs and still love watching it. It was an amazing work putting it on the screen.
There was a scene when the men of Rohan were riding off that pulled together a thought that had been dwelling in the depths of Moria. Realizing that this story is fiction and not a docu-drama(!) I still couldn't help but think the following:
There was a time when men were self-reliant. Their allegiance to their Lord was not a "job". Their sustenance was the work of their own hands...and the hands of their wives and family. Today, men rely on a paycheck for their sustenance but it is not the same. Their allegiance is/was never offered, never received, never honored.
This is not to disrespect the women of that time. Many were as strong of character as their menfolk. Have we lost something as we have advanced? I can't help but think so. I am comforted by only one hope: that when faced with a situation like Katrina or the tsunami, a noticable percentage of the population will resume their place at the front of the lines. Maybe, that is what is behind the huge numbers of men and women enlisting in the military and serving.
I hope so, because it seems today there are many Grima Wormtongues actively trying to influence us...
There was a scene when the men of Rohan were riding off that pulled together a thought that had been dwelling in the depths of Moria. Realizing that this story is fiction and not a docu-drama(!) I still couldn't help but think the following:
There was a time when men were self-reliant. Their allegiance to their Lord was not a "job". Their sustenance was the work of their own hands...and the hands of their wives and family. Today, men rely on a paycheck for their sustenance but it is not the same. Their allegiance is/was never offered, never received, never honored.
This is not to disrespect the women of that time. Many were as strong of character as their menfolk. Have we lost something as we have advanced? I can't help but think so. I am comforted by only one hope: that when faced with a situation like Katrina or the tsunami, a noticable percentage of the population will resume their place at the front of the lines. Maybe, that is what is behind the huge numbers of men and women enlisting in the military and serving.
I hope so, because it seems today there are many Grima Wormtongues actively trying to influence us...
Sunday, December 10, 2006
The false doctrine of too many choices
Cross posted to Agnostics...
This morning's sermon at church reflected, in part, upon the problem of too many choices. Although not directly related to the subject matter, the Pastor commented on how we in America have such a bounty of, well, everything, that we lack the emptiness necessary for a longing for God.
Ignoring the religious issues she was trying to pinpoint, she noted that Tofler in his Future Shock predicted that our society would reach a point where people would recoil from the excess of choices. Over the years, his point of view has been regurgitated over and over again to promote either an economic or political position usually supporting some kind of restriction on freedom.
What was interesting to me was the echo I heard of Joe Biden this morning on TW. His concern was that people in the Middle East didn't have the same kind of definition about freedom that we did, and we might not like the kind of freedom they want. He feared that President Bush, naively, thought they did.
I want to be clear, if my subject title failed to be, that the very concept of too many choices is false. Let me start with an example:
Nonsense, the choice is to go to bed or stay awake. If you choose to go to bed, sleep is soon to follow. If you choose not to, then you have other choices.
A second example (one used on me many years ago by someone that wanted to impose limits on the number of cereals available (I kid you not...)
The first thing I listen to when someone tells me there are too many choices, is what choices I have available to me, they want to limit. This morning, my Pastor wanted us to consider spending a little more money on church campaign items rather than presents to friends and family. We have so many competitors for our dollars, shouldn't we limit the ones that make us feel good, and help those more unfortunate than ourselves? (Didn't like the construction of that sentence? Preferred, "less fortunate". Tough, my choice!)
The problem most people have that complain there are too many choices is they don't like the choices other people are making. Rather than complain about their choices (and in doing so question their freedom to make their own choices), they complain there were too many choices to begin with. If we limit the choices to a few, then more people would choose their choice.
What makes people feel overwhelmed by choices? Lack of purpose. I walk into the cereal aisle with a clear idea of what I am looking for. The vast number of choices fail my criteria on more than one issue. Knowing what I am looking for helps me to make my choices easily.
The money I earn has a specific purpose. Demands on me to spend it a particular way fail to sway me at all because I already know where it is going. Bush chose to deal with Iraq, many on the left offered up "other choices" so as to distract from his purpose. When that failed, the next argument was "too many choices" expressed as "We can't be the world's policeman."
Externally, there can never be too many choices. With 6 billion people on the earth, every option will have some that prefer it. The more choices, the more freedom people have. It is only the lack of will, the lack of purpose that create in people a frustration with the choices available to them. And for others, the cornucopia of choices means less people will join them in their choice, and that freedom isn't the same freedom they wish others to have.
This morning's sermon at church reflected, in part, upon the problem of too many choices. Although not directly related to the subject matter, the Pastor commented on how we in America have such a bounty of, well, everything, that we lack the emptiness necessary for a longing for God.
Ignoring the religious issues she was trying to pinpoint, she noted that Tofler in his Future Shock predicted that our society would reach a point where people would recoil from the excess of choices. Over the years, his point of view has been regurgitated over and over again to promote either an economic or political position usually supporting some kind of restriction on freedom.
What was interesting to me was the echo I heard of Joe Biden this morning on TW. His concern was that people in the Middle East didn't have the same kind of definition about freedom that we did, and we might not like the kind of freedom they want. He feared that President Bush, naively, thought they did.
I want to be clear, if my subject title failed to be, that the very concept of too many choices is false. Let me start with an example:
It is 10:30pm tonight. You can go to bed and get some sleep; stay up and watch TV, stay up and read; stay up and have some intimate time with a spouse/partner; stay up and play a game; stay up and blog; stay up and eat; go out and party; what you say? too many choices?
Nonsense, the choice is to go to bed or stay awake. If you choose to go to bed, sleep is soon to follow. If you choose not to, then you have other choices.
A second example (one used on me many years ago by someone that wanted to impose limits on the number of cereals available (I kid you not...)
Walking down the cereal aisle there are literally a hundred different choices. No one can reasonably make an informed choice on each one. Therefore, we need to limit the number of cereals to one or two in each category.I have three criteria for a morning cereal: it has to have sugar already on it (I hate having to add my own); it has to have at least 5 servings (and since I average 10oz each morning, that means more than 50oz) and it has to cost around 10 cents an oz. There are three that meet those criteria, Frosted Flakes, Frosted Cheerios and Kellogg's Raisin Bran. It takes me about 10 minutes a year to verify that nothing has changed in the aisle and those three remain viable choices. On sale, Frosted Mini Wheats and Lucky Charms add some variety.
The first thing I listen to when someone tells me there are too many choices, is what choices I have available to me, they want to limit. This morning, my Pastor wanted us to consider spending a little more money on church campaign items rather than presents to friends and family. We have so many competitors for our dollars, shouldn't we limit the ones that make us feel good, and help those more unfortunate than ourselves? (Didn't like the construction of that sentence? Preferred, "less fortunate". Tough, my choice!)
The problem most people have that complain there are too many choices is they don't like the choices other people are making. Rather than complain about their choices (and in doing so question their freedom to make their own choices), they complain there were too many choices to begin with. If we limit the choices to a few, then more people would choose their choice.
What makes people feel overwhelmed by choices? Lack of purpose. I walk into the cereal aisle with a clear idea of what I am looking for. The vast number of choices fail my criteria on more than one issue. Knowing what I am looking for helps me to make my choices easily.
The money I earn has a specific purpose. Demands on me to spend it a particular way fail to sway me at all because I already know where it is going. Bush chose to deal with Iraq, many on the left offered up "other choices" so as to distract from his purpose. When that failed, the next argument was "too many choices" expressed as "We can't be the world's policeman."
Externally, there can never be too many choices. With 6 billion people on the earth, every option will have some that prefer it. The more choices, the more freedom people have. It is only the lack of will, the lack of purpose that create in people a frustration with the choices available to them. And for others, the cornucopia of choices means less people will join them in their choice, and that freedom isn't the same freedom they wish others to have.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Two Points
What to do when you have a small following and two posts....?
Item 1. John Bolton has resigned (before being fired...hey, that is what it is when you are not renewed...fired). Bush should NOT name a replacement. The argument can be the best person for the job already had it....second best is not appropriate for the first among equals.
Item 2. A civil society. I am tired of the vulgarity that passes for dialogue. On Thursday I was picking up Victoria from a function and a regular participant had an IMPEACH BUSH pin. I tapped it and suggested he needed to do something illegal first. She then pointed to the IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST pin next to it and exclaimed "I was kinda hoping someone would, you know, shoot him on this trip." My response was "That is very rude, and very unChristian of you to desire the murder of someone just because you dislike them."
The reality is that she wasn't kinda hoping...she was PRAYING for it. I listen (not by choice) to comics and their routines are packed with vulgar, profane tirades. People walking down the street, standing in line at the store, lace their conversation with profanity and vulgarity as if it were a sprinkling of powered sugar on feces. (Yes, I was thinking sh**, but am trying to make a point.)
It has become unacceptable to be polite. It has become acceptable to be vulgar in virtually any company or setting. And it should stop.
I am not asking for a "Victorian" purge. Can each of us, as individuals, strive to call out vulgarity when it occurs, state profanity is unacceptable in our conversations with others? Can we not be polite to others? I like, and thank when it happens, a door held open for me. No one has held a chair for me in decades so I don't hold out much hope there!
Last week a Judge told opposing counsel that his actions had disrespected the Court and debtor's counsel (Victoria) and put him on warning that it would not be tolerated. He then imposed fees against him, something he seldom does.
Respect for ourselves, each other and strangers we meet is the first step in a civil society. We must begin to strive for it, or the culture rot we all see clearly will destroy all that we have accomplished.
Item 1. John Bolton has resigned (before being fired...hey, that is what it is when you are not renewed...fired). Bush should NOT name a replacement. The argument can be the best person for the job already had it....second best is not appropriate for the first among equals.
Item 2. A civil society. I am tired of the vulgarity that passes for dialogue. On Thursday I was picking up Victoria from a function and a regular participant had an IMPEACH BUSH pin. I tapped it and suggested he needed to do something illegal first. She then pointed to the IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST pin next to it and exclaimed "I was kinda hoping someone would, you know, shoot him on this trip." My response was "That is very rude, and very unChristian of you to desire the murder of someone just because you dislike them."
The reality is that she wasn't kinda hoping...she was PRAYING for it. I listen (not by choice) to comics and their routines are packed with vulgar, profane tirades. People walking down the street, standing in line at the store, lace their conversation with profanity and vulgarity as if it were a sprinkling of powered sugar on feces. (Yes, I was thinking sh**, but am trying to make a point.)
It has become unacceptable to be polite. It has become acceptable to be vulgar in virtually any company or setting. And it should stop.
I am not asking for a "Victorian" purge. Can each of us, as individuals, strive to call out vulgarity when it occurs, state profanity is unacceptable in our conversations with others? Can we not be polite to others? I like, and thank when it happens, a door held open for me. No one has held a chair for me in decades so I don't hold out much hope there!
Last week a Judge told opposing counsel that his actions had disrespected the Court and debtor's counsel (Victoria) and put him on warning that it would not be tolerated. He then imposed fees against him, something he seldom does.
Respect for ourselves, each other and strangers we meet is the first step in a civil society. We must begin to strive for it, or the culture rot we all see clearly will destroy all that we have accomplished.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Green space
I snippet of conversation overheard:
"we are fast running out of greenspace...we need more aggressive action against the developers..."
If Texas had the population density of Manhattan NY, we could fit 17 billion people into Texas. In other words, one state in the United States could hold the entire population of the planet and their children, and probably their children's children.
How much greenspace do we need?
Tracy
"we are fast running out of greenspace...we need more aggressive action against the developers..."
If Texas had the population density of Manhattan NY, we could fit 17 billion people into Texas. In other words, one state in the United States could hold the entire population of the planet and their children, and probably their children's children.
How much greenspace do we need?
Tracy
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Slander? Mistake?
John Kerry has stated:
Well, I served in the military and I am not stupid Senator. My brother served in the military and he is not stupid. My nephew has served in Iraq and he is not stupid. But apparently the only one that is crazy is you Senator:
Our experience is that you will, hand have disparaged the troops fighting in the field.
Apologize for a botched joke. You and your supporters have demanded President Bush admit to a mistake in Iraq and apologize when you can't even do so for a botched joke?
"If anyone thinks that a veteran, someone like me, who's been fighting my entire career to provide for veterans, to fight for their benefits, to help honor what their service is, if anybody thinks that a veteran would somehow criticize more than 140,000 troops serving in Iraq and not the president and his people who put them there, they're crazy," he said.
Well, I served in the military and I am not stupid Senator. My brother served in the military and he is not stupid. My nephew has served in Iraq and he is not stupid. But apparently the only one that is crazy is you Senator:
"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....
They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
Our experience is that you will, hand have disparaged the troops fighting in the field.
Apologize for a botched joke. You and your supporters have demanded President Bush admit to a mistake in Iraq and apologize when you can't even do so for a botched joke?
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Last call...
We are a week from election day. It is Halloween. At least the scary people I see today will make me smile.
I have addressed this issue twice and I do it here for a final time. I will not vote for any incumbents. And I am asking you to do the same. For most of us here in my home state that means voting for Republicans.
My rep, Tammy Baldwin(D) has been an OK rep. She hasn't done much, hasn't stirred any pots, caused any scandals and apparently been a good person serving in Congress. Her opponent is agoofus . I can't imagine him actually doing any good in Congress. After 6 years, of doing nothing much, it is time to give someone else a chance. Bye Tammy.
One of my senators, Herb Kohl(D) is also one of those non-descript Congress people. Year after year of nothing bad, nothing good...just putting in their time servants. Kohl is rich, doesn't need a lot of money for his campaign. His opponent is so unremarkable, I can't even remember who it is. (The Green candidate I saw on TV for 5 minutes and he should NEVER been allowed to be in public again.) Bye Herb.
Our governor is Jim Doyle(D) and he has been caught dirty. Too bad his challenger, Mark Green (R) has been caught equally dirty. For the first time ever I got called to respond to a poll (on stem cell issues). Basically, I said I was for it, and Green's position was unlikely to change my position. Bye Jim.
There are a couple of other local races but of no national consequence. And that is my problem. The Republican leadership (WH and Congress) have so thoroughly screwed their base that their only mantra right now is "you have to vote for us, or else it isPelosi". How pathetic is that?
IF I had the opportunity to vote on a National basis next week, I would give the Democrats both House and Senate. Virtually every issue the Democrats can cause trouble about, doesn't affect me directly. What happens in Iraq will damage us for decades, will probably cause more attacks on US soil - BUT not here in Wisconsin. Gay marriage, I oppose it (despite being in a lesbian relationship) because I don't believe the State has any business sanctioning a religious union. Democrats have already voted forDOMA so where is the issue there? Supreme Court: I'd rather have a deadlock court (going 5/4 on every decision) than an ideologically pure left or right court.
The only issue nationally for me is tax cuts. With the economy in it's current condition (sick but not showing any major symptoms), Democrats will face opposition to any effort to let the tax cuts end.
Sorry guys, but when someone misbehaves, they must be punished. Anything else sends a message of acceptance, even at some minor level.
The national Republicans have abandoned their base, their principles. Democrats are likely to find having power is not nearly as enjoyable as wanting power. Right now we have a Charlie Brown populace and a Charlie Brown political leadership. I am tired of watching for the Great Pumpkin.
This country NEEDS to get off the f**king fence.
I have addressed this issue twice and I do it here for a final time. I will not vote for any incumbents. And I am asking you to do the same. For most of us here in my home state that means voting for Republicans.
My rep, Tammy Baldwin(D) has been an OK rep. She hasn't done much, hasn't stirred any pots, caused any scandals and apparently been a good person serving in Congress. Her opponent is agoofus . I can't imagine him actually doing any good in Congress. After 6 years, of doing nothing much, it is time to give someone else a chance. Bye Tammy.
One of my senators, Herb Kohl(D) is also one of those non-descript Congress people. Year after year of nothing bad, nothing good...just putting in their time servants. Kohl is rich, doesn't need a lot of money for his campaign. His opponent is so unremarkable, I can't even remember who it is. (The Green candidate I saw on TV for 5 minutes and he should NEVER been allowed to be in public again.) Bye Herb.
Our governor is Jim Doyle(D) and he has been caught dirty. Too bad his challenger, Mark Green (R) has been caught equally dirty. For the first time ever I got called to respond to a poll (on stem cell issues). Basically, I said I was for it, and Green's position was unlikely to change my position. Bye Jim.
There are a couple of other local races but of no national consequence. And that is my problem. The Republican leadership (WH and Congress) have so thoroughly screwed their base that their only mantra right now is "you have to vote for us, or else it isPelosi". How pathetic is that?
IF I had the opportunity to vote on a National basis next week, I would give the Democrats both House and Senate. Virtually every issue the Democrats can cause trouble about, doesn't affect me directly. What happens in Iraq will damage us for decades, will probably cause more attacks on US soil - BUT not here in Wisconsin. Gay marriage, I oppose it (despite being in a lesbian relationship) because I don't believe the State has any business sanctioning a religious union. Democrats have already voted forDOMA so where is the issue there? Supreme Court: I'd rather have a deadlock court (going 5/4 on every decision) than an ideologically pure left or right court.
The only issue nationally for me is tax cuts. With the economy in it's current condition (sick but not showing any major symptoms), Democrats will face opposition to any effort to let the tax cuts end.
Sorry guys, but when someone misbehaves, they must be punished. Anything else sends a message of acceptance, even at some minor level.
The national Republicans have abandoned their base, their principles. Democrats are likely to find having power is not nearly as enjoyable as wanting power. Right now we have a Charlie Brown populace and a Charlie Brown political leadership. I am tired of watching for the Great Pumpkin.
This country NEEDS to get off the f**king fence.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Once more, with enthusiasm!
After extensive comments regarding BARF (to those familiar with the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005), a year of dealing with the consequences and reading written judicial opinions thereof, I have had the displeasure of reading analyses by those given a platform by which they can spew their lack of knowledge.
Unfortunately, another such analysis has seen the light of a fog-covered, dreary October morning.
What's our review of BR law on its 1st B-Day
Martin Segal has started his review with this clear point:
Ignorance is bliss. Few laws are written and passed in this country that so
completely ignore all the professional opinions of those likely to have to deal with such laws. Professors that teach law, especially bankruptcy law, opposed this abomination by a huge margin. Trustees that would have to implement the law, opposed it almost unanimously. Bankruptcy judges opposed it. NONE of these groups would benefit from the passage of the law, or by it's demise. Strictly on the merits and
the likely consequences was it opposed and that opposition was IGNORED by the Congress and the press.
And given the opinions being written by judges that have to deal with this "law", there have been no mixed reviews, at all.
Of course, one of the preferred outcomes of the enactment was the drastic reduction in bankruptcy filings. And to say it was a success in this regard ignores all the signs and statistics. Filings have already returned to levels seen just 7 or 8 years ago.
Take the number of filings that occurred last year and subtract the average of the
previous two years and you will find almost 700,000 filings that could be attributed to the new law. Those 700,000 filings, assuming they were spread out over a 2006 without the law would have resulted in approximately 1.2m filings. A figure not far below the 1.35 million estimated for 2006 had the 2003-2004 trend continued.
Another "consequence" hoped for, predicted and claimed by the pro-BARF lobby was the reduction in cost to the average American consumer. It was estimated that bankruptcy was adding $400 to every Americans interest burden. Well. With the implementation of the law and the 'vast' reduction in filings....has ANYONE seen a reduction in interest rates by credit lenders???
No. And a true evaluation you are not going to get from Mr. Segal.
Spoken like a true academic. Having never sat through bankruptcy hearings (I'll bet - but hey, I could be wrong, I don't actually KNOW Mr.Segal....wonder if he is friends with Todd Zwyicki?) Mr. Segal doesn't even know how filings are handled. Judges seldom get involved in the vast majority of cases. The trustee assigned the case makes any initial determination that there is an issue regarding the
appropriateness of a filing. And the 'complicated means test' only comes into play when the debtor household earns over the state median income. But we have found that 97% of filers do NOT earn over the state median.
Of course proponents of the law felt judicial discretion was inappropriate and therefore mandated a means test to eliminate any pesky application of ...you know...fairness.
Mr. Segal compounds his obvious ignorance with a flat out distortion. If 97% of filers do not meet the state median income and chapter 13 filings are about 40% of the filings, then 97% of the chapter 13's are by people that CAN file a chapter 7, are below the state median and DO NOT have to repay for 5 years or use the 'stricter' IRS guidelines. And the ignorance of the "Before a judge set..." is just astounding. Plans were proposed by the debtors and if no one objected, confirmed. In our district and in many others, 80-85% of all cases were routinely confirmed. Those proposed by experienced bankruptcy attorneys were often confirmed at a 95% or
better rate.
This is just so false it borders on malpractice...oh wait...Mr. Segal is a legal academic...he doesn't actually PRACTICE law. There are no fines for attorneys. There are however new liability issues for attorneys. If a trustee or creditor makes a motion in the bankruptcy case and it is determined that a debtor provided false information and a court determines a reasonable inquiry by the debtor's attorney should have found the false information, THEN the debtor's attorney is liable for the trustee or creditors expenses including court costs, without limit.
What Mr. Segal and the supporters of this little provision envisioned was debtor attorneys, so used to flagrant abuses of the law and living large, would flee in abject terror of the prospect of such unlimited liability. If a criminal retains an attorney and tells the attorney he is innocent and it is determined that the criminal was in fact guilty - he was caught on tape committing the crime - might some legislator decide that the attorney should be held accountable for the court costs and the legal costs of the state for the trial? Wouldn't a reasonable attorney, upon investigating the information provided by their client, determine his true guilt and force the criminal to a plea....to avoid the litigation?
Don't bother them with details.
I am not going to spend a lot of time on this. It affects only a couple of states but what is interesting is that it affects retired people more than any other group. How? You see, most retired people sell their paid for homes in the states they lived and worked in for years and then moved to states like...Florida. For whatever reason....say their former employer goes bankrupt and voids the retirement plan....the retirees face bankruptcy. That newly purchased Florida real estate is
no longer protected in bankruptcy...but you didn't hear that possibility in Senate debate...
If previous points were misleading or distorted, this is a flat out lie. Prior to BARF fair market value was the maximum for auto loan repayment. There was considerable legal wrangling about what was fair market value, but under the new law, if the auto was purchased in the previous 910 days, the full loan must be repaid (or vehicle redeemed/surrendered). If purchased more than 910 days prior to filing, replacement value applies.
So much for the legal analysis....let's get to his analysis of the consequences:
There is NO research to indicate that the 'stricter requirements' have caused a
decrease. As indicated above, it is likely that the rush to file prior to the law's enactment had a direct impact on the decline. As 97% of those that have taken credit counseling (and some 40% have not yet filed) qualified for chapter 7, it would seem some other factor(s) have had an impact on the number of filings. Could it have been the 43% increase in the court costs? Could it have been the $100 cost to do credit counseling and credit management mandated by the law? Could it have been the 50 to 100% increase in attorney fees caused by the increased liability, extensive new requirements for documentation and verification? Could it have been the press (and attorneys) that relentlessly pounded home the idea that "you better file now before the law changes" that left a lasting impression of the 'impossibility' for filing now? Nah....
Also, we must note this "...Chapter 13 filings have correspondingly increased." As a percentage of filings, chapter 13s are up. In actual numbers, way below the previous 2003-2004 average. But if 97% of filers qualify for chapter 7, why are 40% of them filing chapter 13? There must be a reason...
Primarily, people file chapter 13 to save an asset such as their home from foreclosure. And lo and behold, nationwide, foreclosures are up 50% this year. Maybe, just maybe, the increase in foreclosures are driving more people to file chapter 13...could be...ya know... (ps, foreclosures are likely to exceed 1 million for the first time ever this year...)
IF a debtor is below the median, there is no means test and the amount they tithe is basically irrelevant. If they are above the median though, they can't tithe in a chapter 13...per a recent ruling in NY. This so put Senator Hatch, the leading cheerleader of bankruptcy reform, in such a bad place (being from Utah, many, most of his constituents tithe) that he has introduced AN AMENDMENT to the reform. Something he opposed stridently during debate.
Mr. Segal's claim that "Many people have done this.." lacks ANY support. There have been NO studies done yet on such a claim.
I am uncertain where this comes from. I am unaware of any "special circumstances" that prevent above the median income filers from being forced into chapter 13. There have been some allowances made for Katrina victims but I believe they applied to deadlines and documentation requirements. And to suggest ANY privilege was obtained just because a hurricane DESTROYED YOUR HOME AND EMPLOYER...well, there ya go!
Yea, so well. Judges can waive court filing fees for low income debtors (generally only those that are not represented by an attorney - filing pro se - not a good choice given the complexities built into the new law). The agencies can waive their own fees, judges have no say in them....stupid.
The law is one year old....how much testing of the time limits do you think could be going on? The average plan pays secured and priority debts in the first years and unsecured debts in later years....plans started this year haven't had a chance to even begin paying ANYTHING towards unsecured debts. And where is the support for his "...many debtors are testing..." claim? WHERE?
This is just stupid too. We call these clients chapter 11 clients. You know...like Donald Trump...serial filer....practically untouched under the new law. Do you want to waste some time to calculate the approximate percentage of the population with sufficient income to fund a 900,000 mortgage and 300,000 in credit cards? Less than 1 percent? And how many of them have filed this year, 1, 2?
Mr. Segal. No where on your website do you claim any particular knowledge with regard to bankruptcy so maybe you should avoid answering questions outside your legal specialty.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and nothing posted here should be considered legal advice. Seek knowledgeable legal counsel if you are considering bankruptcy and take no referrals from Mr. Segal!
Unfortunately, another such analysis has seen the light of a fog-covered, dreary October morning.
What's our review of BR law on its 1st B-Day
Martin Segal has started his review with this clear point:
Like any new law of such importance, it was controversial and the reviews are mixed. Credit card companies and other business supporters say it has been a success because it reduced allowable debt cancellation under Chapter 7 liquidation bankruptcy and increased the number of debtors who had to repay creditors under a Chapter 13 payment plan.
Ignorance is bliss. Few laws are written and passed in this country that so
completely ignore all the professional opinions of those likely to have to deal with such laws. Professors that teach law, especially bankruptcy law, opposed this abomination by a huge margin. Trustees that would have to implement the law, opposed it almost unanimously. Bankruptcy judges opposed it. NONE of these groups would benefit from the passage of the law, or by it's demise. Strictly on the merits and
the likely consequences was it opposed and that opposition was IGNORED by the Congress and the press.
And given the opinions being written by judges that have to deal with this "law", there have been no mixed reviews, at all.
Of course, one of the preferred outcomes of the enactment was the drastic reduction in bankruptcy filings. And to say it was a success in this regard ignores all the signs and statistics. Filings have already returned to levels seen just 7 or 8 years ago.
Take the number of filings that occurred last year and subtract the average of the
previous two years and you will find almost 700,000 filings that could be attributed to the new law. Those 700,000 filings, assuming they were spread out over a 2006 without the law would have resulted in approximately 1.2m filings. A figure not far below the 1.35 million estimated for 2006 had the 2003-2004 trend continued.
Another "consequence" hoped for, predicted and claimed by the pro-BARF lobby was the reduction in cost to the average American consumer. It was estimated that bankruptcy was adding $400 to every Americans interest burden. Well. With the implementation of the law and the 'vast' reduction in filings....has ANYONE seen a reduction in interest rates by credit lenders???
Opponents argue the law fails consumers for these same reasons. A true evaluation probably lies somewhere in between.
No. And a true evaluation you are not going to get from Mr. Segal.
Formerly, a judge would determine if a case qualified for Chapter 7 based on a petition filed by the debtor asserting insolvency. Now debtors must
qualify their income under a complicated ''means'' income test based on their state's median income level. If they don't qualify, Chapter 13 repayment is required.
Spoken like a true academic. Having never sat through bankruptcy hearings (I'll bet - but hey, I could be wrong, I don't actually KNOW Mr.Segal....wonder if he is friends with Todd Zwyicki?) Mr. Segal doesn't even know how filings are handled. Judges seldom get involved in the vast majority of cases. The trustee assigned the case makes any initial determination that there is an issue regarding the
appropriateness of a filing. And the 'complicated means test' only comes into play when the debtor household earns over the state median income. But we have found that 97% of filers do NOT earn over the state median.
Of course proponents of the law felt judicial discretion was inappropriate and therefore mandated a means test to eliminate any pesky application of ...you know...fairness.
Chapter 13 filers must repay amounts for five years based on stricter IRS living standards. Before a judge set three-year repayment schedules based on what a debtor could reasonably afford to pay.
Mr. Segal compounds his obvious ignorance with a flat out distortion. If 97% of filers do not meet the state median income and chapter 13 filings are about 40% of the filings, then 97% of the chapter 13's are by people that CAN file a chapter 7, are below the state median and DO NOT have to repay for 5 years or use the 'stricter' IRS guidelines. And the ignorance of the "Before a judge set..." is just astounding. Plans were proposed by the debtors and if no one objected, confirmed. In our district and in many others, 80-85% of all cases were routinely confirmed. Those proposed by experienced bankruptcy attorneys were often confirmed at a 95% or
better rate.
Attorneys for debtors can be personally fined for inaccurate filing information in schedules of assets and liabilities.
This is just so false it borders on malpractice...oh wait...Mr. Segal is a legal academic...he doesn't actually PRACTICE law. There are no fines for attorneys. There are however new liability issues for attorneys. If a trustee or creditor makes a motion in the bankruptcy case and it is determined that a debtor provided false information and a court determines a reasonable inquiry by the debtor's attorney should have found the false information, THEN the debtor's attorney is liable for the trustee or creditors expenses including court costs, without limit.
What Mr. Segal and the supporters of this little provision envisioned was debtor attorneys, so used to flagrant abuses of the law and living large, would flee in abject terror of the prospect of such unlimited liability. If a criminal retains an attorney and tells the attorney he is innocent and it is determined that the criminal was in fact guilty - he was caught on tape committing the crime - might some legislator decide that the attorney should be held accountable for the court costs and the legal costs of the state for the trial? Wouldn't a reasonable attorney, upon investigating the information provided by their client, determine his true guilt and force the criminal to a plea....to avoid the litigation?
Don't bother them with details.
Formerly,Chapter 7 homestead exempt property was determined by state law. Florida allowed a ''millionaire's exemption'' of unlimited value even if the property was bought shortly before a bankruptcy filing. Now debtors can only exempt a maximum $125,000 of homestead value if the property was bought within 40 months before filing.
I am not going to spend a lot of time on this. It affects only a couple of states but what is interesting is that it affects retired people more than any other group. How? You see, most retired people sell their paid for homes in the states they lived and worked in for years and then moved to states like...Florida. For whatever reason....say their former employer goes bankrupt and voids the retirement plan....the retirees face bankruptcy. That newly purchased Florida real estate is
no longer protected in bankruptcy...but you didn't hear that possibility in Senate debate...
Before secured auto loan debts were repaid based on the full unpaid loan balance. Now repayments are reduced to actual vehicle value.
If previous points were misleading or distorted, this is a flat out lie. Prior to BARF fair market value was the maximum for auto loan repayment. There was considerable legal wrangling about what was fair market value, but under the new law, if the auto was purchased in the previous 910 days, the full loan must be repaid (or vehicle redeemed/surrendered). If purchased more than 910 days prior to filing, replacement value applies.
So much for the legal analysis....let's get to his analysis of the consequences:
As predicted, the number of Chapter 7 filings has greatly decreased
because of stricter requirements and Chapter 13 filings have correspondingly increased.
There is NO research to indicate that the 'stricter requirements' have caused a
decrease. As indicated above, it is likely that the rush to file prior to the law's enactment had a direct impact on the decline. As 97% of those that have taken credit counseling (and some 40% have not yet filed) qualified for chapter 7, it would seem some other factor(s) have had an impact on the number of filings. Could it have been the 43% increase in the court costs? Could it have been the $100 cost to do credit counseling and credit management mandated by the law? Could it have been the 50 to 100% increase in attorney fees caused by the increased liability, extensive new requirements for documentation and verification? Could it have been the press (and attorneys) that relentlessly pounded home the idea that "you better file now before the law changes" that left a lasting impression of the 'impossibility' for filing now? Nah....
Also, we must note this "...Chapter 13 filings have correspondingly increased." As a percentage of filings, chapter 13s are up. In actual numbers, way below the previous 2003-2004 average. But if 97% of filers qualify for chapter 7, why are 40% of them filing chapter 13? There must be a reason...
Primarily, people file chapter 13 to save an asset such as their home from foreclosure. And lo and behold, nationwide, foreclosures are up 50% this year. Maybe, just maybe, the increase in foreclosures are driving more people to file chapter 13...could be...ya know... (ps, foreclosures are likely to exceed 1 million for the first time ever this year...)
Chapter 7 applicants are permitted to tithe up to 15 percent of their income to charity as an expense. Some suggest this opens a loophole that allows
people who are otherwise over the means income limit to lower their net income under the allowed ceiling and preserve their filing. Many people have done this to stay in Chapter 7.
IF a debtor is below the median, there is no means test and the amount they tithe is basically irrelevant. If they are above the median though, they can't tithe in a chapter 13...per a recent ruling in NY. This so put Senator Hatch, the leading cheerleader of bankruptcy reform, in such a bad place (being from Utah, many, most of his constituents tithe) that he has introduced AN AMENDMENT to the reform. Something he opposed stridently during debate.
Mr. Segal's claim that "Many people have done this.." lacks ANY support. There have been NO studies done yet on such a claim.
Applicants who couldn't technically qualify for Chapter 7 debt liquidation have had some success claiming ''special circumstances'' beyond their
control forced the filing. Hurricane Katrina victims were given this privilege.
I am uncertain where this comes from. I am unaware of any "special circumstances" that prevent above the median income filers from being forced into chapter 13. There have been some allowances made for Katrina victims but I believe they applied to deadlines and documentation requirements. And to suggest ANY privilege was obtained just because a hurricane DESTROYED YOUR HOME AND EMPLOYER...well, there ya go!
New credit counseling requirements, originally thought to be oppressive, have worked fairly well. There are approved agencies that charge reasonable fees of $50 to $100 for the requiredprefiling and post-filing services, and judges can waive payment for lowincome debtors.
Yea, so well. Judges can waive court filing fees for low income debtors (generally only those that are not represented by an attorney - filing pro se - not a good choice given the complexities built into the new law). The agencies can waive their own fees, judges have no say in them....stupid.
The old law allowed a discretionary ''hardship discharge'' to Chapter 13 debtors before their completion of their five-year payment term. They had to prove that income problems were caused by unforeseen difficulties such as job downsizing, illness and accident, and that creditors had already received as much as they would have been paid under Chapter 7. Now many debtors are testing the time limits of early discharge by broadening their claims of payment difficulty.
The law is one year old....how much testing of the time limits do you think could be going on? The average plan pays secured and priority debts in the first years and unsecured debts in later years....plans started this year haven't had a chance to even begin paying ANYTHING towards unsecured debts. And where is the support for his "...many debtors are testing..." claim? WHERE?
Some experts have pointed out an inherent flaw in the current law. Debtors who can't qualify for Chapter 7 because their income is too high may also be
barred from Chapter 13 relief due to its eligibility ceilings of $307,675 for unsecured debts and $922,975 for secured debts. Critics suggest the new law should have either greatly increased or totally eliminated these Chapter 13 limits.
This is just stupid too. We call these clients chapter 11 clients. You know...like Donald Trump...serial filer....practically untouched under the new law. Do you want to waste some time to calculate the approximate percentage of the population with sufficient income to fund a 900,000 mortgage and 300,000 in credit cards? Less than 1 percent? And how many of them have filed this year, 1, 2?
Mr. Segal. No where on your website do you claim any particular knowledge with regard to bankruptcy so maybe you should avoid answering questions outside your legal specialty.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and nothing posted here should be considered legal advice. Seek knowledgeable legal counsel if you are considering bankruptcy and take no referrals from Mr. Segal!
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Bankruptcy Reform - One year later...
There have been many stories in the press about the anniversary of the bankruptcy reform act and it's impact. In general, the reports are holding to party line. I say that because one of the goals of the reform was to reduce bankruptcy filings and filings are down significantly. Although some are calling the current level "historically low", you need only to go back 7 or 8 years to reach monthly filing levels comparable to the previous quarter.
Let me take some of the talking points and address them specifically.
Significantly lower filing rates. The first goal of the legislation was to reduce the number of bankruptcy filings. I want to offer an analogy: a medical clinic is seeing 1000 patients a month with minor to major wounds. The clinic supporters, faced with increasing costs to serve patients, decide to charge everyone coming in according to their income. Activists complain that will cause some patients to not come to the clinic but supporters claim those that can afford to pay, will pay
their fair share and those that do not will continue to get free or close to free care. After instituting the plan, admissions drop to 600 a month.
Now the question is, did the number of people that got injured drop? Did fewer people get hurt because of the possibility they would have to pay for medical care?
The number of bankruptcy filings in 2004 was lower than 2003. Absent the reform act, it is likely that the trend would have continued. As many supporters of the reform pointed out, the economy was getting better. Assuming a similar drop from 2004 to 2005 as 2003 to 2004, about 1.4 million people would have filed. As about 2.1 million did, we can say that 700,000 people filed either: because get while thegettin was good; or they were going to file anyway and getting in under the old law was a rational choice. Adding 90% of the rush filers to the probable filers in 2006, would have given us about 1 million filers this year, roughly a 30% drop. How
much of that drop could be attributed to different factors will be left up to researchers in the future but let us look at the possibilities:
Fewer people filed bankruptcy in 2006 because:
The law made it more difficult for above median income debtors to file chapter 7
This is the reason most commonly cited by the pro reform groups/supporters. However, it generally fails to acknowledge one fact ignored IN THIS CONTEXT, the number of chapter 13 filers grew by as much as 50%. Why? These are people that are BELOW the median. They, theoretically, can file chapter 7 but CHOOSE to file chapter 13.
The cost to file bankruptcy (regardless of chapter) has increased, pricing many of the most needy out of the ability to file.
This was the reason most opponents gave for opposing the reform act. Attorney fees increased across the board and across the nation. In many areas, attorney fees had been capped by courts and kept at artificially low levels for years. In our area, fees had remained steady for more than 10 years. The increase in documentation requirements and the requirement that attorneys VERIFY AND ATTEST to the accuracy of information provided by the debtor, resulted in courts allowing higher fees. The court costs to file a chapter 7 rose by 43%. The requirement that all debtors take and pay for credit counseling added another $50 to the costs (effectively increasing the filing costs by 67%). For some people, especially the least able to afford it, the court cost increase was/is prohibitive. [Before some moron claims that the very poor can get the fees waived, they should be aware that - in general - a person represented by an attorney that gets ANY fee, is generally NOT able to get the court
costs waived. The court believes if you can afford an attorney, you can afford the court costs, even if the attorney is working for a substantially reduced fee. Given the requirement that attorneys verify and attest to the accuracy of debtor information, such a situation will become very rare, the liability issues alone cause attorneys nightmares.] Finally, many attorneys allowed clients to pay part of
their fee upfront, and the balance after filing. This gave clients relief and although most courts (when presented the issue) denied attorneys the balance of their fees post filing, bankruptcy attorneys took the risk. Under the new law, that risk is unacceptable and very few attorneys (none we know of) provide payment plans, instead requiring the full fee to be paid in advance of filing. The significant increase in attorney fees, the significant increase in court fees and the addition of secondary fees has made filing more expensive for those people most in need of bankruptcy - DESPITE claims by reform supporters that it would not hurt below median filers at all.
The means test will either weed out those that do not really need to file or force them to file chapter 13.
Reports from credit counseling services indicate that 97% of the people taking credit counseling have insufficient income to pay their bills. But only about 60% of those that have taken the counseling have actually filed. Any argument that suggests that those that have not filed after taking credit counseling were potential abusers under the old system and too scared to face the new system ignores the 97% claim. More likely, the people that don't file CAN'T AFFORD TO. Again, if 97% of the people
that take credit counseling can't afford to pay their bills and chapter 13 rates INCREASE, then people are filing chapter 13 despite the fact they will probably fail. In the past, 40% of chapter 13 filers fail to complete their plan. The reasons are many, but chapter 13 budgets are usually very tight (even under the old law) and leave little room for unexpected expenses. Failure rates will take years to determine under the new law, but if the 97% number is accurate, expect failure rates to climb.
So, why would someone with little hope to pay their bills, and below the median income, file chapter 13? And to do so increasingly under the new law?
Chapter 13 is most commonly used for people that wish to retain an asset, such as a home. People facing foreclosure can file chapter 13 and reorganize their debts allowing them to keep their home. When foreclosure rates increase, so do the number of chapter 13 bankruptcy filers. And what has happened to foreclosure rates recently? Up 50% nationwide so far this year. For the first time ever, foreclosures will number over 1 million....historical. The number of chapter 13 filers is increasing because the number of people facing foreclosure is increasing (IMO). Despite the changes in the law, the number of chapter 13 filings is down considerably LESS than chapter 7 filings.
Some words on the law itself (rather than it's consequences). When debated, Todd Zywicki, a primary drafter of the law, sat in front of a Senate committee and claimed the law was just fine, no amendments were needed. After 8 years of trying to get through Congress, the draft bill addressed all the "real" concerns of those opposing it. In action however, the law has left many judges andtrustees frustrated. In a rare display of displeasure, judges around the country are noting their frustration in written opinions. On judge cited Mr.Zywicki's testimony disparagingly. Mr. Zywicki cried foul, but the overwhelming response to his complaint that he had been taken out of context was one of dismissal. Attorneys almost unanimously felt the Judge had not erred. Recently, Senator Hatch offered an amendment to the reform law...apparently, the 'perfect' law had a consequence that hit too close to home for the Senator from Utah (the state with the highest percentage of bankruptcy filers and one of the largest percentage of charitable givers) when a judge ruled that chapter 13 filers could not continue charitable contributions.
Lastly, bankruptcy fraud. One of the chief complaints of pro reform advocates was the claim that 10% of bankruptcy cases included fraud. This percentage was thrown about very often in the debate but NO support for it was ever given. First, let me give you an example of "fraud", hiding assets: A client appeared at a bankruptcy hearing wearing a stud earring. The trustee noted that there was no jewelry listed in the personal property schedule and required the petition be amended to include the stud earring. Value, $5. This was fraud, caught by a trustee, under the old law. REAL bankruptcy fraud is so rare, that when cases were brought, the FBI issued press releases! This year, the Justice Department and the FBI investigated cases in 36 bankruptcy districts and of the 250,000 cases filed, they found 18 with fraud. 18.
How much fraud has occurred?
From 1988-1995: 1474 cases referred, 355 convictions (~7.5 million cases filed)
From 1995-2001: 6090 cases referred, 482 convictions (~7 million cases filed)
14.5 million cases, 7600 cases referred .05% fraud rate. Where oh where did 10% come from? By the way, only 837 convictions came out of those 7600 cases, or .0058%
The most recent report on the 18 cases out of 250,000 filed indicates .072% fraud rate...gee...under the new law, the fraud rate, WENT UP! We'll see what the actual conviction rate is much later.
By every measure, the number of bankruptcy filings is increasing post reform enactment. It may take time to reach previous levels, but there is no doubt it will happen. Reform promised several things: fewer filings - CHECK; more chapter 13's - CHECK; less fraud -OOPPS; continued availability for those most in need - OOPPS; lower credit interest rates for everyone (oh, you didn't hear that claim...sure, it was right there when they said that loose bankruptcy rules were costing everyone $400 a year in extra interest paid, suggesting that everyone would be paying $400 less per year when the law was changed - your interest rates on credit cards and other loans have gone down this year...haven't they?) -OOPPS.
Remember this next time some paper or news station reports that bankruptcy reform has worked, the only ones bankruptcy reform has helped, were the credit card companies that did not report a SINGLE quarter of losses due to the 2.1 million bankruptcy petitions filed last year.
Let me take some of the talking points and address them specifically.
Significantly lower filing rates. The first goal of the legislation was to reduce the number of bankruptcy filings. I want to offer an analogy: a medical clinic is seeing 1000 patients a month with minor to major wounds. The clinic supporters, faced with increasing costs to serve patients, decide to charge everyone coming in according to their income. Activists complain that will cause some patients to not come to the clinic but supporters claim those that can afford to pay, will pay
their fair share and those that do not will continue to get free or close to free care. After instituting the plan, admissions drop to 600 a month.
Now the question is, did the number of people that got injured drop? Did fewer people get hurt because of the possibility they would have to pay for medical care?
The number of bankruptcy filings in 2004 was lower than 2003. Absent the reform act, it is likely that the trend would have continued. As many supporters of the reform pointed out, the economy was getting better. Assuming a similar drop from 2004 to 2005 as 2003 to 2004, about 1.4 million people would have filed. As about 2.1 million did, we can say that 700,000 people filed either: because get while thegettin was good; or they were going to file anyway and getting in under the old law was a rational choice. Adding 90% of the rush filers to the probable filers in 2006, would have given us about 1 million filers this year, roughly a 30% drop. How
much of that drop could be attributed to different factors will be left up to researchers in the future but let us look at the possibilities:
Fewer people filed bankruptcy in 2006 because:
The law made it more difficult for above median income debtors to file chapter 7
This is the reason most commonly cited by the pro reform groups/supporters. However, it generally fails to acknowledge one fact ignored IN THIS CONTEXT, the number of chapter 13 filers grew by as much as 50%. Why? These are people that are BELOW the median. They, theoretically, can file chapter 7 but CHOOSE to file chapter 13.
The cost to file bankruptcy (regardless of chapter) has increased, pricing many of the most needy out of the ability to file.
This was the reason most opponents gave for opposing the reform act. Attorney fees increased across the board and across the nation. In many areas, attorney fees had been capped by courts and kept at artificially low levels for years. In our area, fees had remained steady for more than 10 years. The increase in documentation requirements and the requirement that attorneys VERIFY AND ATTEST to the accuracy of information provided by the debtor, resulted in courts allowing higher fees. The court costs to file a chapter 7 rose by 43%. The requirement that all debtors take and pay for credit counseling added another $50 to the costs (effectively increasing the filing costs by 67%). For some people, especially the least able to afford it, the court cost increase was/is prohibitive. [Before some moron claims that the very poor can get the fees waived, they should be aware that - in general - a person represented by an attorney that gets ANY fee, is generally NOT able to get the court
costs waived. The court believes if you can afford an attorney, you can afford the court costs, even if the attorney is working for a substantially reduced fee. Given the requirement that attorneys verify and attest to the accuracy of debtor information, such a situation will become very rare, the liability issues alone cause attorneys nightmares.] Finally, many attorneys allowed clients to pay part of
their fee upfront, and the balance after filing. This gave clients relief and although most courts (when presented the issue) denied attorneys the balance of their fees post filing, bankruptcy attorneys took the risk. Under the new law, that risk is unacceptable and very few attorneys (none we know of) provide payment plans, instead requiring the full fee to be paid in advance of filing. The significant increase in attorney fees, the significant increase in court fees and the addition of secondary fees has made filing more expensive for those people most in need of bankruptcy - DESPITE claims by reform supporters that it would not hurt below median filers at all.
The means test will either weed out those that do not really need to file or force them to file chapter 13.
Reports from credit counseling services indicate that 97% of the people taking credit counseling have insufficient income to pay their bills. But only about 60% of those that have taken the counseling have actually filed. Any argument that suggests that those that have not filed after taking credit counseling were potential abusers under the old system and too scared to face the new system ignores the 97% claim. More likely, the people that don't file CAN'T AFFORD TO. Again, if 97% of the people
that take credit counseling can't afford to pay their bills and chapter 13 rates INCREASE, then people are filing chapter 13 despite the fact they will probably fail. In the past, 40% of chapter 13 filers fail to complete their plan. The reasons are many, but chapter 13 budgets are usually very tight (even under the old law) and leave little room for unexpected expenses. Failure rates will take years to determine under the new law, but if the 97% number is accurate, expect failure rates to climb.
So, why would someone with little hope to pay their bills, and below the median income, file chapter 13? And to do so increasingly under the new law?
Chapter 13 is most commonly used for people that wish to retain an asset, such as a home. People facing foreclosure can file chapter 13 and reorganize their debts allowing them to keep their home. When foreclosure rates increase, so do the number of chapter 13 bankruptcy filers. And what has happened to foreclosure rates recently? Up 50% nationwide so far this year. For the first time ever, foreclosures will number over 1 million....historical. The number of chapter 13 filers is increasing because the number of people facing foreclosure is increasing (IMO). Despite the changes in the law, the number of chapter 13 filings is down considerably LESS than chapter 7 filings.
Some words on the law itself (rather than it's consequences). When debated, Todd Zywicki, a primary drafter of the law, sat in front of a Senate committee and claimed the law was just fine, no amendments were needed. After 8 years of trying to get through Congress, the draft bill addressed all the "real" concerns of those opposing it. In action however, the law has left many judges andtrustees frustrated. In a rare display of displeasure, judges around the country are noting their frustration in written opinions. On judge cited Mr.Zywicki's testimony disparagingly. Mr. Zywicki cried foul, but the overwhelming response to his complaint that he had been taken out of context was one of dismissal. Attorneys almost unanimously felt the Judge had not erred. Recently, Senator Hatch offered an amendment to the reform law...apparently, the 'perfect' law had a consequence that hit too close to home for the Senator from Utah (the state with the highest percentage of bankruptcy filers and one of the largest percentage of charitable givers) when a judge ruled that chapter 13 filers could not continue charitable contributions.
Lastly, bankruptcy fraud. One of the chief complaints of pro reform advocates was the claim that 10% of bankruptcy cases included fraud. This percentage was thrown about very often in the debate but NO support for it was ever given. First, let me give you an example of "fraud", hiding assets: A client appeared at a bankruptcy hearing wearing a stud earring. The trustee noted that there was no jewelry listed in the personal property schedule and required the petition be amended to include the stud earring. Value, $5. This was fraud, caught by a trustee, under the old law. REAL bankruptcy fraud is so rare, that when cases were brought, the FBI issued press releases! This year, the Justice Department and the FBI investigated cases in 36 bankruptcy districts and of the 250,000 cases filed, they found 18 with fraud. 18.
How much fraud has occurred?
From 1988-1995: 1474 cases referred, 355 convictions (~7.5 million cases filed)
From 1995-2001: 6090 cases referred, 482 convictions (~7 million cases filed)
14.5 million cases, 7600 cases referred .05% fraud rate. Where oh where did 10% come from? By the way, only 837 convictions came out of those 7600 cases, or .0058%
The most recent report on the 18 cases out of 250,000 filed indicates .072% fraud rate...gee...under the new law, the fraud rate, WENT UP! We'll see what the actual conviction rate is much later.
By every measure, the number of bankruptcy filings is increasing post reform enactment. It may take time to reach previous levels, but there is no doubt it will happen. Reform promised several things: fewer filings - CHECK; more chapter 13's - CHECK; less fraud -OOPPS; continued availability for those most in need - OOPPS; lower credit interest rates for everyone (oh, you didn't hear that claim...sure, it was right there when they said that loose bankruptcy rules were costing everyone $400 a year in extra interest paid, suggesting that everyone would be paying $400 less per year when the law was changed - your interest rates on credit cards and other loans have gone down this year...haven't they?) -OOPPS.
Remember this next time some paper or news station reports that bankruptcy reform has worked, the only ones bankruptcy reform has helped, were the credit card companies that did not report a SINGLE quarter of losses due to the 2.1 million bankruptcy petitions filed last year.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Is there any reason to rehash this?
Those opposed to voting to return the GOP to Congress provide a long
list of failures by the GOP. A failure of leadership both in the
Congress and by the White House.
It is clear that a Democrat
controlled Congress certainly will not address GOP/Conservative
concerns so voting for them as punishment will only make matters worse.
Claiming
that Democrats will make things worse is not a good reason to vote for
Republicans. Ground your teenager to his room and he will be unable to
do hislawnmowing chores. Your punishment to others, hurts you. Classic cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Or is it?
Rewarding
bad behaviour is never an appropriate response. But if the punishment
is likely to cause more problems than continued bad behavior - how do
you stop the bad behavior?
I don't have a good answer to that, but I am sure that grounding the Republicans, isn't it.
list of failures by the GOP. A failure of leadership both in the
Congress and by the White House.
It is clear that a Democrat
controlled Congress certainly will not address GOP/Conservative
concerns so voting for them as punishment will only make matters worse.
Claiming
that Democrats will make things worse is not a good reason to vote for
Republicans. Ground your teenager to his room and he will be unable to
do hislawnmowing chores. Your punishment to others, hurts you. Classic cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Or is it?
Rewarding
bad behaviour is never an appropriate response. But if the punishment
is likely to cause more problems than continued bad behavior - how do
you stop the bad behavior?
I don't have a good answer to that, but I am sure that grounding the Republicans, isn't it.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Numbness...or short attention span?
A suggestion has been made that Americans are numb to the death and destruction impaled on our psyche daily by the press. Ya think?
In the United States in 2005 there were:
16,927 murders
417,122 robberies
93,934 forcible rapes
Meaning, everyday in the United states there are 46 murders, 1,142 robberies and 257 rapes. Put that next to the droning of how many people were slaughtered in the name of Allah in Baghdad today.
Now, in this country, no matter how "numb" we are to the daily carnage we hope that the criminals are punished and we are saddened for the victims. Ok, not really unless it is close to home, but you can be pretty certain, NO ONE IS CHEERING!
No preacher is standing in front of his flock and telling them to go forth, murdering and raping! (Unless that preacher happens to be MUSLIM...then I am not so sure.)
People are not NUMB to the carnage in Baghdad (and make no mistake, despite the occasional car bomb in Mosul or Basra the main problem is in Baghdad and it's suburbs) they just recognize two minor facts: A larger percentage of the population is actively supporting the carnage; and it is a DAMN WAR ZONE! Duh!?
In the United States in 2005 there were:
16,927 murders
417,122 robberies
93,934 forcible rapes
Meaning, everyday in the United states there are 46 murders, 1,142 robberies and 257 rapes. Put that next to the droning of how many people were slaughtered in the name of Allah in Baghdad today.
Now, in this country, no matter how "numb" we are to the daily carnage we hope that the criminals are punished and we are saddened for the victims. Ok, not really unless it is close to home, but you can be pretty certain, NO ONE IS CHEERING!
No preacher is standing in front of his flock and telling them to go forth, murdering and raping! (Unless that preacher happens to be MUSLIM...then I am not so sure.)
People are not NUMB to the carnage in Baghdad (and make no mistake, despite the occasional car bomb in Mosul or Basra the main problem is in Baghdad and it's suburbs) they just recognize two minor facts: A larger percentage of the population is actively supporting the carnage; and it is a DAMN WAR ZONE! Duh!?
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Bankruptcy Fraud: a review
The Justice Department and the FBI have jointly announced a significant nationwide sweep of bankruptcy fraud criminals.
Yep, you can read how after investigations in 36 districts the sweep netted:
18 cases, and 78 people.
Out of over a quarter million cases.
MAN that new law is great!
Yep, you can read how after investigations in 36 districts the sweep netted:
18 cases, and 78 people.
Out of over a quarter million cases.
MAN that new law is great!
Monday, October 16, 2006
A call to dis-arm
I know that I have a small readership, and generally you do not make comments, but I am asking now.
Please leave a comment: agree or disagree (additional comments are welcome)
In passing I have answered the anti-war group that we should recall all military personal, no matter where stationed, home.
I AM NOW MAKING THAT REQUEST. I want every single military member currently assigned to ANY station overseas, returned to US soil within 90 days. From South Korea, from Japan, from the Philippines, from Diego Garcia, from Afghanistan and Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, from Europe, from England, from South and Central America.
Recall however that military troops also guard our embassies and consulates the world over. They are to be returned also. Recall ALL embassy staffs and ambassadors. Given that we are leaving, I expect the world to respond in kind. As some countries may be reluctant, I ask that the creditials of every diplomat currently in the US be revoked. All embassies are to be closed and vacated within 10 days. No asylum will be granted to anyone currently here on diplomatic creditials. Further, as the UN constitutes a 'foreign' presence, it is also to be vacated within 7 days. All foreign nationals on diplomatic work at the UN are to leave within 7 days.
All deployed naval groups are to return to home ports. All deployed air units are to return to their home fields.
Effective immediately, all vessels not under the US flag are to be boarded prior to entry into US navigational waters. All aircraft requesting landing in the US must provide personal information on ALL travelers at least 3 hours prior to DEPARTURE or the planes will be turned away, militarily.
The left has been screaming for this for more than a year. Step up now and support this request.
Please leave a comment: agree or disagree (additional comments are welcome)
In passing I have answered the anti-war group that we should recall all military personal, no matter where stationed, home.
I AM NOW MAKING THAT REQUEST. I want every single military member currently assigned to ANY station overseas, returned to US soil within 90 days. From South Korea, from Japan, from the Philippines, from Diego Garcia, from Afghanistan and Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, from Europe, from England, from South and Central America.
Recall however that military troops also guard our embassies and consulates the world over. They are to be returned also. Recall ALL embassy staffs and ambassadors. Given that we are leaving, I expect the world to respond in kind. As some countries may be reluctant, I ask that the creditials of every diplomat currently in the US be revoked. All embassies are to be closed and vacated within 10 days. No asylum will be granted to anyone currently here on diplomatic creditials. Further, as the UN constitutes a 'foreign' presence, it is also to be vacated within 7 days. All foreign nationals on diplomatic work at the UN are to leave within 7 days.
All deployed naval groups are to return to home ports. All deployed air units are to return to their home fields.
Effective immediately, all vessels not under the US flag are to be boarded prior to entry into US navigational waters. All aircraft requesting landing in the US must provide personal information on ALL travelers at least 3 hours prior to DEPARTURE or the planes will be turned away, militarily.
The left has been screaming for this for more than a year. Step up now and support this request.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
What's a moderate to do?
Rep. Mark Foley resigned. Too bad he didn't have a democratic PR person on the payroll, it may have helped him keep his seat.
Right now, if I were the democrats (I use the small d to denote all of that particular political persuasion), I'd keep my mouth shut about Foley and what anyone might have known, when. The democrats might not have noticed, but they are standing in the finest of crystal chambers holding big, heavy rocks.
Rep. Mark Foley resigned. Apparently, he has some semblance of character remaining. There are many examples of less notable Democrats.
Just to the right of this post is a little icon RESET. It is a link to my website that suggests we should not be voting for incumbents. Several noted essayists have recently penned that however disgusted we find ourselves with the current Republican majority, having Democrats running Congress (or even half of it) is a far greater potential disaster. I find their arguments compelling. However.
Rep. Mark Foley resigned. I accept that we elect humans to Congress. With all their faults and personal deficiencies. I am however troubled by the unseeminglyness that seems to pervade the very pores of those that have held office for (apparently) more than a few hours. There is a war on and the 'prisoners' we have captured receive better food, medical treatment and personal services than just about every American EXCEPT those in Congress. According to some human rights stupidity, I heard that the significant weight gains experienced by the 'detainees' in Gitmo is "evidence" of their mistreatment. The GOVERNMENT of the United States is fighting a war EXACTLY as the British fought our 'war of independence'. Marching with drums in bright red coats onto a field of battle, all but saying, "shoot ME! Please!"
Rep. Mark Foley resigned. The man charged with finding Osama bin Laden in the CIA a week ago stated: "Richard Clarke, Sandy Berger and President Clinton LIED." And was he pissed when he said it. Mr. Clinton stated the week before that he tried very hard to get bin Laden, but failed. Mr. Clinton was right, he FAILED. He failed to protect US in 1993 at the World Trade Center, in Africa (in Somalia and the embassies), in Yemen and he contributed mightily to 9/11. George Bush Sr failed us in Iraq in 92 and contributed to WTC in 93. Reagan failed us in Beirut. And George Bush Jr has failed us. But Bush Jr will be leaving soon enough, unable to continue his failures. However, Congress has failed in it's duties and has every appearance of continuing to do so. On virtually EVERY topic, our government is failing and spending obscene amounts of money doing it.
Rep. Mark Foley resigned. Not because of 9/11, not because the FBI found $90,000 wrapped in foil in his freezer, not because he has an intern 'service' him in his office, but because of words written on a computer screen.
If Congress and the Administration had ONE OUNCE the integrity of Rep. Mark Foley, they would resign too. I don't expect it and therefore, I continue to support, NO TO INCUMBENTS.
Right now, if I were the democrats (I use the small d to denote all of that particular political persuasion), I'd keep my mouth shut about Foley and what anyone might have known, when. The democrats might not have noticed, but they are standing in the finest of crystal chambers holding big, heavy rocks.
Rep. Mark Foley resigned. Apparently, he has some semblance of character remaining. There are many examples of less notable Democrats.
Just to the right of this post is a little icon RESET. It is a link to my website that suggests we should not be voting for incumbents. Several noted essayists have recently penned that however disgusted we find ourselves with the current Republican majority, having Democrats running Congress (or even half of it) is a far greater potential disaster. I find their arguments compelling. However.
Rep. Mark Foley resigned. I accept that we elect humans to Congress. With all their faults and personal deficiencies. I am however troubled by the unseeminglyness that seems to pervade the very pores of those that have held office for (apparently) more than a few hours. There is a war on and the 'prisoners' we have captured receive better food, medical treatment and personal services than just about every American EXCEPT those in Congress. According to some human rights stupidity, I heard that the significant weight gains experienced by the 'detainees' in Gitmo is "evidence" of their mistreatment. The GOVERNMENT of the United States is fighting a war EXACTLY as the British fought our 'war of independence'. Marching with drums in bright red coats onto a field of battle, all but saying, "shoot ME! Please!"
Rep. Mark Foley resigned. The man charged with finding Osama bin Laden in the CIA a week ago stated: "Richard Clarke, Sandy Berger and President Clinton LIED." And was he pissed when he said it. Mr. Clinton stated the week before that he tried very hard to get bin Laden, but failed. Mr. Clinton was right, he FAILED. He failed to protect US in 1993 at the World Trade Center, in Africa (in Somalia and the embassies), in Yemen and he contributed mightily to 9/11. George Bush Sr failed us in Iraq in 92 and contributed to WTC in 93. Reagan failed us in Beirut. And George Bush Jr has failed us. But Bush Jr will be leaving soon enough, unable to continue his failures. However, Congress has failed in it's duties and has every appearance of continuing to do so. On virtually EVERY topic, our government is failing and spending obscene amounts of money doing it.
Rep. Mark Foley resigned. Not because of 9/11, not because the FBI found $90,000 wrapped in foil in his freezer, not because he has an intern 'service' him in his office, but because of words written on a computer screen.
If Congress and the Administration had ONE OUNCE the integrity of Rep. Mark Foley, they would resign too. I don't expect it and therefore, I continue to support, NO TO INCUMBENTS.
Friday, September 22, 2006
It's the third round and ...
he has them right where he wants them. All summer he has played their music and the little rats have followed him down to the ring. This week, the ring leader stood in front of all the little rats who were drooling over his every word...ah, the ROP A DOP
Religion of Peace a Destroyer of Peace
Religion of Peace a Destroyer of Peace
Friday, September 15, 2006
A letter to Senator Hatch
In response to the NY Bankruptcy judge's findings that above median income debtors can not provide money to charity, Senator Hatch's spokesman Peter Carr said that they would be looking into an amendment to the bankruptcy reform act, I have sent the following to Senator Hatch:
To Mr. Peter Carr and Senator Hatch regarding the finding of a NY Bankruptcy judge that above median income debtors can not propose a chapter 13 bankruptcy and allow for charitable contributions: Sen Hatch. Todd Zywicki sat in your committee and proclaimed the law needed no amendments. You stood on the floor of the Senate and claimed that after 8 years of compromise and changes and adjustments, amendments were only being offered by those that would oppose the bill in any form. Sir, the chickens have come home to roost. By almost all accounts rendered in the written opinions of bankruptcy judges faced with dealing with 'perfect' bill, it is an abortion. Initial reports are that over 97% of the people going through credit counseling have NO means to make any repayment. That is a HIGHER percentage of chapter 7 than existed prior to the BARF of 2005. Further, the argument that only a small portion of people would be affected by the 'reform' ignores the $90 rise in filing fees, the $50 cost of credit counseling and the higher attorney fees due to the substantial increase in reporting, documentation and liability issues. All increases in costs on the backs of those least likely to be able to afford them. Congrats Sen Hatch on a bill you helped shepherd for 8 years. The Trustees, judges and attorneys that have to deal with the aftermath will remember you kindly when you attempt to amend your pinnacle of bankruptcy legislation to cover your butt with those churches that rely on charitable contributions...oh wait...the impact is on so few people....why bother with an amendment....if they are above the median...they can afford to pay their bills, before giving money away.
To Mr. Peter Carr and Senator Hatch regarding the finding of a NY Bankruptcy judge that above median income debtors can not propose a chapter 13 bankruptcy and allow for charitable contributions: Sen Hatch. Todd Zywicki sat in your committee and proclaimed the law needed no amendments. You stood on the floor of the Senate and claimed that after 8 years of compromise and changes and adjustments, amendments were only being offered by those that would oppose the bill in any form. Sir, the chickens have come home to roost. By almost all accounts rendered in the written opinions of bankruptcy judges faced with dealing with 'perfect' bill, it is an abortion. Initial reports are that over 97% of the people going through credit counseling have NO means to make any repayment. That is a HIGHER percentage of chapter 7 than existed prior to the BARF of 2005. Further, the argument that only a small portion of people would be affected by the 'reform' ignores the $90 rise in filing fees, the $50 cost of credit counseling and the higher attorney fees due to the substantial increase in reporting, documentation and liability issues. All increases in costs on the backs of those least likely to be able to afford them. Congrats Sen Hatch on a bill you helped shepherd for 8 years. The Trustees, judges and attorneys that have to deal with the aftermath will remember you kindly when you attempt to amend your pinnacle of bankruptcy legislation to cover your butt with those churches that rely on charitable contributions...oh wait...the impact is on so few people....why bother with an amendment....if they are above the median...they can afford to pay their bills, before giving money away.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Debunking Bankrate's 12 Myths of Bankruptcy
Bankrate.com has posted 12 Myths About Bankruptcy. As we have a page on our site called 6 Myths of Bankruptcy I thought it would be an interesting read. After all, maybe there are some additions we could make to our page!
So imagine my surprise(not) when I started reading myths about the myths. Shall we?
This is our #4. In reality, most counties do publish the names of people or businesses that file bankruptcy. In our area, they are published in the one of the daily papers and in the monthly business magazine. It has been our experience that with few exceptions the names are published regularly. In Chicago, there is a separate legal publication that publishes all legal filings, including bankruptcy. The point trying to be made is that few people actually READ such notices. The three groups most likely to read the listings: creditors, advertisers (people selling credit repair scams) and the terminal (those people without a life).
They start off great, but end terrible. Judgments (what they claim to be legal settlements) are often dischargeable. If a credit card company gets a judgment against you, it is discharged in a chapter 7. Some judgments where you are assessed criminal damages to pay someone you have harmed do stay after bankruptcy. Only a good bankruptcy attorney can determine which judgments are dischargeable. Where fraud is concerned, talk to an attorney. Of course the biggest omission in their list is SECURED debts. Your personal obligation gets discharged, but plan on continuing to pay the mortgage or car loan if you want to keep them because the liens still exist against the property.
This is our #6. There are some states that do not have exemptions. In those states, FEDERAL exemptions apply. Ok, maybe I am just being picky here. But, what can be exempt was seriously curtailed with the new bankruptcy law. Among other things, the federal exemptions now limit you to ONE TV, one radio, one computer and one DVD/VCR (and clothing and household goods). Paintings bought at a store, golf clubs, guns and bikes (adults) are also more exposed under the new law. Although there are ways to deal with this change, a good bankruptcy attorney is necessary!
Our #5. First they are correct about getting credit in the future. Heck, we even have Chapter 13 clients getting refinanced while IN bankruptcy. But it does have an impact on your credit rating, history and the rates you will be offered. Be very careful with credit offers, scams are rampant. Oh, and their suggestion to obtain debt before filing, such a suggestion is ILLEGAL if made by anyone offering bankruptcy advice. However, this is one of the perversions of the new law. Example: Two single men, one earning $45k a year, the other earning $90k a year. Both wanting to file a chapter 7. Assuming the median income in their area is $40k a year, at initial glance, both have to file chapter 13 instead. Let's now compare debts. Our $45k earner rents, has a beater car and $80k in credit card debt. Our $90k earner owns a home, a new Hummer, a Harley, a Snowmobile, a $2k computer and all new furniture - all purchased with secured debt, and $25k in credit cards. After all calculations are done, our $45k earner has to pay $450 a month into a chapter 13 plan, but our $90k earner qualifies for a chapter 7. Sounds fair? It is the new law.
We ignore this one because we are a community property state. Debts are usually community property (there are exceptions - talk to a good bankruptcy attorney!) and therefore filing as a married couple makes sense. There are several community property states, check yours. But even here, we get one spouse filings. Give them this one.
Technically you don't need a dentist to pull a tooth. Technically you don't need an attorney to buy a home. Technically you don't need a doctor for a 104 fever. It is not hard to file bankruptcy at all! It is however very hard to get a discharge that covers all the debts that can be discharged without a good bankruptcy attorney. I'll give them this one, technically.
Our experience is that over 90% of people that file bankruptcy have had at least one of the 'life-changing experiences'. We have had gamblers, and an occasional "I'm going to beat the system' types (which we send packing BTW). But my nit-pick here is the 'struggled for months'. In almost every case, the time frame is years. On average 2.5 years. No credit here, they are adding a myth.
Bless you? Credit extension was a BUSINESS decision, appealing to your religious guilt is a way creditors coerce people to keep paying even at the expense of family or health. For decades businesses have used the bankruptcy card to justify higher interest rates. Anyone see interest rates GO DOWN this year? Nope. How many businesses get the government to bail them out of a bad decision? After 8 years of trying the credit industry got just that plum. Exactly how many $600 million dollar a year in profit businesses do you know care one bit about YOU? Bless you...HAH! No credit on this one just for pissing me off....
Oh, those nasty bankruptcy lawyers.....trolling for clients....while credit card companies send out 5 BILLION OFFERS this year.... Yep, bankruptcy is a bad thing on your credit report...so is a repossession, a foreclosure, judgments and continued lates on payments....so when a bankruptcy is filed...the judgments go away, the lates stop and you get back on your feet financially. While there will be some hemming and hawing from the credit REPORTING side of things, all things being equal, if you take two people in exactly the same terrible financial shape, have one file bankruptcy and let the other continue struggling, guess who's credit score will be higher next year? You got it...the person that filed bankruptcy. And remember their #4? Never get credit again? Who do you think the credit issuers will give lend to next year? The person that filed bankruptcy, or the one still struggling?
It is not easily done, and as stated, there are conditions, but taxes can be discharged. Credit them this one.
Actually, the time frames with regard to Chapter 13 are more ...pliable... than that, but generally speaking they are right, you can file more than once. Prior to the law, we often filed twice for a particular type of client: homeowners. We would file a chapter 7 to get rid of unsecured debt, then a chapter 13 to deal with secured debt. It is still possible to the same under the new law, with some qualifiers and conditions. But I will call your attention to one repeat filer many will be familiar with: Donald Trump. There are reasons for bankruptcy, and damn it, leave religion out of it.....karma....shheesssh.
Ah, now the credit industry wants to let bankruptcy judges and trustees watch for fraud. See, before the new law passed, it's supporters claimed that the judges and trustees practically NEVER caught such fraud despite it's obvious widespread nature. And for many people that do file bankruptcy, many of them, maybe a majority, maxed out their credit cards in the year before filing without any problem in bankruptcy.
So. There are myths about bankruptcy, mostly promoted by the credit industry to keep you from filing. If you have these danger signals, you should be talking to a knowledgeable bankruptcy attorney. Because the most important myth to debunk is the one you read about somewhere.
So imagine my surprise(not) when I started reading myths about the myths. Shall we?
1. Everyone will know I've filed for bankruptcy.
Unless you're a prominent person or a major corporation and the filing is picked up by the media, the chances are very good that the only people who will know about a filing are your creditors. While it's true that bankruptcy is a public legal proceeding, the number of people filing is so massive that very few publications have the space, the manpower or the inclination to run all of them.
This is our #4. In reality, most counties do publish the names of people or businesses that file bankruptcy. In our area, they are published in the one of the daily papers and in the monthly business magazine. It has been our experience that with few exceptions the names are published regularly. In Chicago, there is a separate legal publication that publishes all legal filings, including bankruptcy. The point trying to be made is that few people actually READ such notices. The three groups most likely to read the listings: creditors, advertisers (people selling credit repair scams) and the terminal (those people without a life).
2. All debts are wiped out in Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
You wish. Certain types of debts cannot be discharged (erased). They include child support, alimony, government-issued or government-guaranteed student loans, and debts incurred as the result of fraud. It's also very unlikely that a judge will discharge legal settlements you've been assessed, such as money you've been ordered to pay to someone who sued you.
They start off great, but end terrible. Judgments (what they claim to be legal settlements) are often dischargeable. If a credit card company gets a judgment against you, it is discharged in a chapter 7. Some judgments where you are assessed criminal damages to pay someone you have harmed do stay after bankruptcy. Only a good bankruptcy attorney can determine which judgments are dischargeable. Where fraud is concerned, talk to an attorney. Of course the biggest omission in their list is SECURED debts. Your personal obligation gets discharged, but plan on continuing to pay the mortgage or car loan if you want to keep them because the liens still exist against the property.
3. I'll lose everything I have.
This is the misconception that keeps people who really should file for bankruptcy from doing it, says Chris Viale, chief operating officer of Massachusetts-based Cambridge Credit Counseling Corp.
"They think the government will sell everything they have and they'll have to start over in a cardboard box," Viale says.
While the bankruptcy laws vary from state to state, every state has exemptions that protect certain kinds of assets, such as your house, your car (up to a certain value), money in qualified retirement plans, household goods and clothing.
This is our #6. There are some states that do not have exemptions. In those states, FEDERAL exemptions apply. Ok, maybe I am just being picky here. But, what can be exempt was seriously curtailed with the new bankruptcy law. Among other things, the federal exemptions now limit you to ONE TV, one radio, one computer and one DVD/VCR (and clothing and household goods). Paintings bought at a store, golf clubs, guns and bikes (adults) are also more exposed under the new law. Although there are ways to deal with this change, a good bankruptcy attorney is necessary!
4. I'll never get credit again.
Quite the contrary. It won't be long before you're getting credit card offers again. They'll just be from subprime lenders that will charge very high interest rates. "There are innumerable companies that will provide credit to you," says California bankruptcy attorney and trustee Howard Ehrenberg. "I don't advise any of my clients to run out and run up the bills again, but if someone does need an automobile, they can go and will be able to get credit. You don't have to go underground or something to get money."
However, if you're planning to buy a house or a car, you might want to do that before you file. Those loans will be tough to get and the higher interest rate on such a large purchase would make a significant impact on your payments. Also, if you have a credit card with a zero balance on the day you file for bankruptcy, you don't have to list it as a creditor since you don't owe any money on it. That means, you might be able to keep that card even after the bankruptcy.
Our #5. First they are correct about getting credit in the future. Heck, we even have Chapter 13 clients getting refinanced while IN bankruptcy. But it does have an impact on your credit rating, history and the rates you will be offered. Be very careful with credit offers, scams are rampant. Oh, and their suggestion to obtain debt before filing, such a suggestion is ILLEGAL if made by anyone offering bankruptcy advice. However, this is one of the perversions of the new law. Example: Two single men, one earning $45k a year, the other earning $90k a year. Both wanting to file a chapter 7. Assuming the median income in their area is $40k a year, at initial glance, both have to file chapter 13 instead. Let's now compare debts. Our $45k earner rents, has a beater car and $80k in credit card debt. Our $90k earner owns a home, a new Hummer, a Harley, a Snowmobile, a $2k computer and all new furniture - all purchased with secured debt, and $25k in credit cards. After all calculations are done, our $45k earner has to pay $450 a month into a chapter 13 plan, but our $90k earner qualifies for a chapter 7. Sounds fair? It is the new law.
5. If you're married, both spouses have to file for bankruptcy.
Not necessarily. "It's not uncommon for one spouse to have a significant amount of debt in their name only," Hargrave says. However, if spouses have debts they want to discharge that they're both liable for, they should file together. Otherwise, the creditor will simply demand payment for the entire amount from the spouse who didn't file.
We ignore this one because we are a community property state. Debts are usually community property (there are exceptions - talk to a good bankruptcy attorney!) and therefore filing as a married couple makes sense. There are several community property states, check yours. But even here, we get one spouse filings. Give them this one.
6. It's really hard to file for bankruptcy.
It's really not. You don't even technically need an attorney. However, it's not recommended to go through the procedure without one.
Technically you don't need a dentist to pull a tooth. Technically you don't need an attorney to buy a home. Technically you don't need a doctor for a 104 fever. It is not hard to file bankruptcy at all! It is however very hard to get a discharge that covers all the debts that can be discharged without a good bankruptcy attorney. I'll give them this one, technically.
7. Only deadbeats file for bankruptcy.
Most people file for bankruptcy after a life-changing experience, such as a divorce, the loss of a job or a serious illness. They've struggled to pay their bills for months and just keep falling further behind.
Our experience is that over 90% of people that file bankruptcy have had at least one of the 'life-changing experiences'. We have had gamblers, and an occasional "I'm going to beat the system' types (which we send packing BTW). But my nit-pick here is the 'struggled for months'. In almost every case, the time frame is years. On average 2.5 years. No credit here, they are adding a myth.
8. I don't want to include certain creditors in my filing because it's important to me to pay them back someday and if the debt is discharged, I can't ever repay them.
Bless you for even thinking about such a thing. You're no longer obligated to repay them, but you always have that opportunity. If your conscience won't let you sleep nights because you didn't pay your debts, there's nothing in the bankruptcy code that prevents you from doing that once you're back on your feet. But bankruptcy is an all-or-nothing deal, so you have to include all your creditors in the petition.
Bless you? Credit extension was a BUSINESS decision, appealing to your religious guilt is a way creditors coerce people to keep paying even at the expense of family or health. For decades businesses have used the bankruptcy card to justify higher interest rates. Anyone see interest rates GO DOWN this year? Nope. How many businesses get the government to bail them out of a bad decision? After 8 years of trying the credit industry got just that plum. Exactly how many $600 million dollar a year in profit businesses do you know care one bit about YOU? Bless you...HAH! No credit on this one just for pissing me off....
9. Filing for bankruptcy will improve my credit rating because all those debts will be gone.
That sounds like an ad for a bankruptcy lawyer trolling for clients. Filing for bankruptcy is the worst 'negative' you can have on your credit report. Unlike other negatives, which stay on your report for seven years, bankruptcy can be there for 10 years.
Oh, those nasty bankruptcy lawyers.....trolling for clients....while credit card companies send out 5 BILLION OFFERS this year.... Yep, bankruptcy is a bad thing on your credit report...so is a repossession, a foreclosure, judgments and continued lates on payments....so when a bankruptcy is filed...the judgments go away, the lates stop and you get back on your feet financially. While there will be some hemming and hawing from the credit REPORTING side of things, all things being equal, if you take two people in exactly the same terrible financial shape, have one file bankruptcy and let the other continue struggling, guess who's credit score will be higher next year? You got it...the person that filed bankruptcy. And remember their #4? Never get credit again? Who do you think the credit issuers will give lend to next year? The person that filed bankruptcy, or the one still struggling?
10. You can't get rid of back taxes through bankruptcy.
Generally speaking, this is true. However, there is such a thing as tax bankruptcy, says tax educator Eva Rosenberg, known on the Web as Tax Mama. To get a shot at it, you have to file all your returns and the taxes owed need to be at least three years old.
It is not easily done, and as stated, there are conditions, but taxes can be discharged. Credit them this one.
11. You can only file for bankruptcy once.
You can file for bankruptcy more than once, but the bankruptcy law that went into effect in October 2005 lengthened the required wait between filings. You can only file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy once every eight years. You have to wait two years to repeat a Chapter 13 filing and four years between a Chapter 7 and a Chapter 13 case.
Of course, that doesn't make it a good idea.
"Multiple bankruptcies are really bad," Rosenberg says. "Many people get into the habit of once they've done it, it becomes a way of life. This is not good for your karma." Or your credit rating.
Actually, the time frames with regard to Chapter 13 are more ...pliable... than that, but generally speaking they are right, you can file more than once. Prior to the law, we often filed twice for a particular type of client: homeowners. We would file a chapter 7 to get rid of unsecured debt, then a chapter 13 to deal with secured debt. It is still possible to the same under the new law, with some qualifiers and conditions. But I will call your attention to one repeat filer many will be familiar with: Donald Trump. There are reasons for bankruptcy, and damn it, leave religion out of it.....karma....shheesssh.
12. I can max out all my credit cards, file for bankruptcy and never pay for the things I bought.
That's called fraud and bankruptcy judges can get really cranky about it. The trustee in your case will review all your purchases right before your filing. The trustee knows what to look for.
Ah, now the credit industry wants to let bankruptcy judges and trustees watch for fraud. See, before the new law passed, it's supporters claimed that the judges and trustees practically NEVER caught such fraud despite it's obvious widespread nature. And for many people that do file bankruptcy, many of them, maybe a majority, maxed out their credit cards in the year before filing without any problem in bankruptcy.
So. There are myths about bankruptcy, mostly promoted by the credit industry to keep you from filing. If you have these danger signals, you should be talking to a knowledgeable bankruptcy attorney. Because the most important myth to debunk is the one you read about somewhere.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Score one for Hatch
Dear Senator Hatch,
Congrats on the passage of the Bankruptcy Reform Act. According to the Federal Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of New York, your constituents that earn over the median income will no longer be able to deduct charitable contributions in calculating the required means test. Given that Utah has a significant Mormon population that actively tithes, their future inability will likely piss off the Church. No worries though...that vast reduction in the number of bankruptcies filed will have little impact on the Church receipts (oopss...filings are increasing and expected to reach pre-reform levels sometime next year)!
Again, congrats on a job well done for the banking industry!
Congrats on the passage of the Bankruptcy Reform Act. According to the Federal Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of New York, your constituents that earn over the median income will no longer be able to deduct charitable contributions in calculating the required means test. Given that Utah has a significant Mormon population that actively tithes, their future inability will likely piss off the Church. No worries though...that vast reduction in the number of bankruptcies filed will have little impact on the Church receipts (oopss...filings are increasing and expected to reach pre-reform levels sometime next year)!
Again, congrats on a job well done for the banking industry!
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Sectarian? Actually, religious war...
There has been much made over the Rumsfeld speech and the military report on Iraq over the last several days and I wanted to add a few words.
First: sectarian violence. This is members of one sect of Islam killing members of another sect of Islam. It is exactly the same as Protestants killing Catholics. What you say? Protestants are not killing Catholics? Yes, well, they were in Ireland. The scale is smaller but I don't recall the MSM calling it civil war....maybe the scale has something to do with it. The actual point I want to make is that the "sectarian violence" in Iraq is not calling for a split of the country. We do not hear of 'spokesmen' saying that if the Sunnis get their own country, they will stop killing people. We do not hear of Shite 'spokesmen' saying that if they get their own country, free of Sunnis, they will stop killing people. Hell, we don't even hear Kurdish 'spokesmen' saying if they get their own country...well, they are not killing anyone so what's the worry there. There is no civil war, there is ongoing religious based mass murder. Quit calling it sectarian violence...it makes it sound so, clinical. Call it what it is, Islamic violence. This is about two groups of Moslems killing each other over who has the right God sense. There is nothing civil about it.
Second. Fourteen of the eighteen provinces in Iraq are generally speaking, quiet. No more dying is going on in those provinces than goes on in Washington, New York, Detroit or Los Angeles on any particular day. The four provinces still fighting battles are those that were predominately Sunni controlled. Gee, surprise. Of course, we are not exactly on great terms with Shites..given their fawning over Iran. Still, there does appear to be a real political life in Iraq and we need to be more on that side than any other.
Third. Bush lied crowd: grow up. Joe Wilson has been so discredited, I surprised Mastercard hasn't hired him. No plan to win: we won already. The war to dispose Saddam was won and accomplished. Getting Iraq to the point of stability and ability to defend itself, we're working on it. Takes time.
Fourth. War on terror. I keep hearing that the left agrees we have a war on terror. However, their suggestions on how to deal with it all seem to revolve around talking to our friends and talking to our 'enemies' (and we shouldn't call them that because it just makes them mad and more prone to being angry...). Talking is so great....If we could have just talked to Atta...maybe he would have landed instead.
Last: Powell convinced the rest of the Administration that France was on board, right before France appeased Saddam. Rice convinced the rest of the Administration that France was on board, right before France appeased the Arabs. Does anyone else think that the State Department should get billing as the latest reincarnation of the home of the body snatchers? I want to know: does the State Department cafeteria only serve Perrier?
Victoria has been listening to Air America a lot over the last 10 days or so...therefore, of course, so have I. If Air America is any indication of the current mentality of the left, half this country has already surrendered.
First: sectarian violence. This is members of one sect of Islam killing members of another sect of Islam. It is exactly the same as Protestants killing Catholics. What you say? Protestants are not killing Catholics? Yes, well, they were in Ireland. The scale is smaller but I don't recall the MSM calling it civil war....maybe the scale has something to do with it. The actual point I want to make is that the "sectarian violence" in Iraq is not calling for a split of the country. We do not hear of 'spokesmen' saying that if the Sunnis get their own country, they will stop killing people. We do not hear of Shite 'spokesmen' saying that if they get their own country, free of Sunnis, they will stop killing people. Hell, we don't even hear Kurdish 'spokesmen' saying if they get their own country...well, they are not killing anyone so what's the worry there. There is no civil war, there is ongoing religious based mass murder. Quit calling it sectarian violence...it makes it sound so, clinical. Call it what it is, Islamic violence. This is about two groups of Moslems killing each other over who has the right God sense. There is nothing civil about it.
Second. Fourteen of the eighteen provinces in Iraq are generally speaking, quiet. No more dying is going on in those provinces than goes on in Washington, New York, Detroit or Los Angeles on any particular day. The four provinces still fighting battles are those that were predominately Sunni controlled. Gee, surprise. Of course, we are not exactly on great terms with Shites..given their fawning over Iran. Still, there does appear to be a real political life in Iraq and we need to be more on that side than any other.
Third. Bush lied crowd: grow up. Joe Wilson has been so discredited, I surprised Mastercard hasn't hired him. No plan to win: we won already. The war to dispose Saddam was won and accomplished. Getting Iraq to the point of stability and ability to defend itself, we're working on it. Takes time.
Fourth. War on terror. I keep hearing that the left agrees we have a war on terror. However, their suggestions on how to deal with it all seem to revolve around talking to our friends and talking to our 'enemies' (and we shouldn't call them that because it just makes them mad and more prone to being angry...). Talking is so great....If we could have just talked to Atta...maybe he would have landed instead.
Last: Powell convinced the rest of the Administration that France was on board, right before France appeased Saddam. Rice convinced the rest of the Administration that France was on board, right before France appeased the Arabs. Does anyone else think that the State Department should get billing as the latest reincarnation of the home of the body snatchers? I want to know: does the State Department cafeteria only serve Perrier?
Victoria has been listening to Air America a lot over the last 10 days or so...therefore, of course, so have I. If Air America is any indication of the current mentality of the left, half this country has already surrendered.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
A job...
I am looking for work I can do at home. If you need administrative help of virtually any kind, please let me know. Resume available upon request.
Now, as I think this post is generally off topic and a request for help, I think it is only fair I give something of value back to you. Below is a list 'definitions' I wrote the last time I was looking for work...
Now, as I think this post is generally off topic and a request for help, I think it is only fair I give something of value back to you. Below is a list 'definitions' I wrote the last time I was looking for work...
| Entry Level | Low pay, lotsa work, no future |
| Ability to work independently | No support staff, you're on your own |
| Experienced | No training provided |
| Team player | Boss gets credit, you get blame |
| Salary history required | We don't want someone we have to pay a lot for |
| Salary requirements | We don't want to read all the resumes we'll get...note: see above |
| Salary negotiable | We don't know how much to pay, or the more you can do, the less we can pay |
| Excellant benefits | The salary is below average |
| Flexible hours | Overtime and weekend required with no notice |
| Self starter | You must know the job in the first week |
| Room for advancement | We want to replace your future boss but pay less for the position |
| Casual environment | 1. Dress down on alternate Fridays 2. Personnel reviews done in company lunchroom or at company parties |
| Supervisory position | We'll blame you for the other people's screw ups |
| Leadership abilities | Your boss wants someone to cover for him while he golfs |
| Ability to take charge | Your boss works 60-70 hours a week and has been looking very pale lately |
| Boss' right hand | 1. Boss has two left hands, or... 2. Boss needs someone to do his work also |
| College grads encouraged | We hope you'll take anything to pay off your loans |
| Re-entering work force | You earn the same as you would as a stay at home mom without the cute smiles....or We'll pay you entry level rates and expect managerial experience |
| Managerial experience | You'll be expected to supervise a bunch of children |
| Diverse environment | We have one of everything here |
| Experienced only | You'll be the only one that can do the job |
| College degree required | We want to say that we have a college degreed person doing this menial job |
| Customer service | You'll have to answer the phones when the Receptionist is at lunch |
| HS Diploma or equvalent required | We need a warm body |
| Some college required | Teenagers need not apply |
| Advanced degree required | We mean it...you have to know something about this |
| MBA | We want a fast track program and you're it! |
| No experience required, we'll train | It's our way or no way |
| Some experience | We'll let you do the grunt work |
| 10 years experience | You teach us |
| Support busy manager | You make the coffee and pick up the laundry |
| Family environment | Babysit the bosses kids |
Saturday, August 26, 2006
A good economy?
My friend Tom over at BizzyBlog and I have slightly different opinions about the state of our economy. His opinion is that the economy is doing great and the doomsayers are taking molehills and making mountains out of them. I am by nature an optimistic person but because of our business, we see a lot of molehills.
First, foreclosures. When a family faces foreclosure, their financial condition is usually in very serious distress. Many people facing foreclosure have judgments against them for non-payment of credit cards, utilities or medical bills. The foreclosure is usually the last in a long line of non-payments. Still. Foreclosures occur even in the best economic conditions, so in and of themselves, they do not indicate a systemic problem with the economy. Despite the 70% increase in foreclosures nationwide during the first quarter of 2006, we are talking about less than one million foreclosures in a market of over 75 million. A relatively small percentage. In our area, we saw a similar foreclosure rate in our area, but it has settled down to about 30% increase for the 2.66 quarters of this year. Based on previous history, it will probably finish the year nearer 50% increase. A troubling issue, but we are talking about 2500 foreclosures in an area of about 850,000 people. Of those 2500 foreclosures, about half will actually be able to come up with the money to stave off the loss and keep their homes. This will of course lead most reasonable people to dismiss the issue as a molehill. But I do want to use one more stat to suggest it is a bigger problem. Last year about 14,000 homes were sold in the area, meaning about 10% were foreclosures. There is a current unsold inventory of almost 5,000 homes in our area. Foreclosure increases will lead to additional inventory and because of their nature, pressure on pricing.
The impact of foreclosures will not show up in many econ stats: people still need a place to live and most people evicted by foreclosure will end up in rental housing. Based on a general opinion, most people will net a reduction in housing costs freeing up money for other expenses.
Foreclosures and housing bubble? Markets that had significant investor involvement were getting very overheated last year and those markets are the ones experiencing 'bubble' like results. Other markets with moderate increases in values and sustainable growth seem to be weathering things just fine. Regional housing recessions are likely but not expected to spread - IMO.
Second issue: gas prices. We have several truck drivers as clients. Over the last 18 months, they have experienced almost 100% increase in fuel costs. Even average drivers have seen significant increases in fuel expenditures. Miles driven have not decreased (though the increase is minor) over the last year. I will be interested to see how the 'vacation' areas did over this summer.
I think we have a good economy. Two million people filed bankruptcy last year with practically no impact on the economy (or the profit margins of the credit issuing industry...kinda makes you wonder why they were all in a huff to get the law changed). Katrina practically wiped out New Orleans and parts of the Gulf Coast also with little or no economic impact to the country. However, there ARE problems.
Based on the refinancing, there was a net pre-tax savings of over $31 billion in 2003. That number was certainly higher in 2004 and 2005. Equity refinancing added almost $200 billion to the economy in each of the last three years, not an insignificant change. If however many of the refinancings were to ARMs or other non-standard mortgages (interest only for example) then interest rate increases will make it harder to refinance in the future and increase the demand upon family budgets. 3 year ARMs sold in 2003 are coming due for their increases and we are seeing contractual limit increases (2-2.5%). On a $150,000 mortgage, payments are jumping as much as 28%. Those that can, are selling their homes when faced with stiff increases, but the market has slowed. Home sales are down almost 5% over last year. This situation is worse in those markets that had active investor involvement driving prices.
Over the last 5 years, real estate has driven a lot of our economy. A slowdown in housing sales and construction, already underway in many markets, will lead to increased unemployment as the fall progresses. Unable to refinance and faced with higher gas and maybe mortgage payments, retail sales may slow also - though there is little indication of that occurring yet. Consumers are getting pinched.
We have a good economy, but certain pillars of that economy are showing serious signs. High fuel prices are going to force prices in many parts of the economy higher. Unable to refinance and facing higher mortgage payments, consumers will be unable to sustain their current spending habits. A slow down in housing will increase unemployment. Every good economy ended, sometime. In hindsight, the writing was on the wall.
Remember this: By the end of the year, 500,000 families will have lost their homes.
The question for us optimists is: are we looking at the wall now, or keeping our backs to it...
First, foreclosures. When a family faces foreclosure, their financial condition is usually in very serious distress. Many people facing foreclosure have judgments against them for non-payment of credit cards, utilities or medical bills. The foreclosure is usually the last in a long line of non-payments. Still. Foreclosures occur even in the best economic conditions, so in and of themselves, they do not indicate a systemic problem with the economy. Despite the 70% increase in foreclosures nationwide during the first quarter of 2006, we are talking about less than one million foreclosures in a market of over 75 million. A relatively small percentage. In our area, we saw a similar foreclosure rate in our area, but it has settled down to about 30% increase for the 2.66 quarters of this year. Based on previous history, it will probably finish the year nearer 50% increase. A troubling issue, but we are talking about 2500 foreclosures in an area of about 850,000 people. Of those 2500 foreclosures, about half will actually be able to come up with the money to stave off the loss and keep their homes. This will of course lead most reasonable people to dismiss the issue as a molehill. But I do want to use one more stat to suggest it is a bigger problem. Last year about 14,000 homes were sold in the area, meaning about 10% were foreclosures. There is a current unsold inventory of almost 5,000 homes in our area. Foreclosure increases will lead to additional inventory and because of their nature, pressure on pricing.
The impact of foreclosures will not show up in many econ stats: people still need a place to live and most people evicted by foreclosure will end up in rental housing. Based on a general opinion, most people will net a reduction in housing costs freeing up money for other expenses.
Foreclosures and housing bubble? Markets that had significant investor involvement were getting very overheated last year and those markets are the ones experiencing 'bubble' like results. Other markets with moderate increases in values and sustainable growth seem to be weathering things just fine. Regional housing recessions are likely but not expected to spread - IMO.
Second issue: gas prices. We have several truck drivers as clients. Over the last 18 months, they have experienced almost 100% increase in fuel costs. Even average drivers have seen significant increases in fuel expenditures. Miles driven have not decreased (though the increase is minor) over the last year. I will be interested to see how the 'vacation' areas did over this summer.
I think we have a good economy. Two million people filed bankruptcy last year with practically no impact on the economy (or the profit margins of the credit issuing industry...kinda makes you wonder why they were all in a huff to get the law changed). Katrina practically wiped out New Orleans and parts of the Gulf Coast also with little or no economic impact to the country. However, there ARE problems.
...cash-outs from refinancing to total $162 billion for the year but, as rates continue to rise, the figure would fall back to $69 billion for the whole of 2006. In 2004 homeowners extracted $140 billion in equity through refinancing their homes.http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/852005_Cash_Out_Refinancing.asp
Based on the refinancing, there was a net pre-tax savings of over $31 billion in 2003. That number was certainly higher in 2004 and 2005. Equity refinancing added almost $200 billion to the economy in each of the last three years, not an insignificant change. If however many of the refinancings were to ARMs or other non-standard mortgages (interest only for example) then interest rate increases will make it harder to refinance in the future and increase the demand upon family budgets. 3 year ARMs sold in 2003 are coming due for their increases and we are seeing contractual limit increases (2-2.5%). On a $150,000 mortgage, payments are jumping as much as 28%. Those that can, are selling their homes when faced with stiff increases, but the market has slowed. Home sales are down almost 5% over last year. This situation is worse in those markets that had active investor involvement driving prices.
Over the last 5 years, real estate has driven a lot of our economy. A slowdown in housing sales and construction, already underway in many markets, will lead to increased unemployment as the fall progresses. Unable to refinance and faced with higher gas and maybe mortgage payments, retail sales may slow also - though there is little indication of that occurring yet. Consumers are getting pinched.
We have a good economy, but certain pillars of that economy are showing serious signs. High fuel prices are going to force prices in many parts of the economy higher. Unable to refinance and facing higher mortgage payments, consumers will be unable to sustain their current spending habits. A slow down in housing will increase unemployment. Every good economy ended, sometime. In hindsight, the writing was on the wall.
Remember this: By the end of the year, 500,000 families will have lost their homes.
The question for us optimists is: are we looking at the wall now, or keeping our backs to it...
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Give me liberty or give me...
Plenty of people are writing about the foiled plot, I shall not add to the din.
I have heard, after some shock has worn off, the same refrain from the left about liberties and security:
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
And I am really tired of the thought process that thinks that any attempt to protect people is a slippery slope to a police state. So, I sat down with the above saying and let it roll around in my pretty little head and I now have some responses to the dweebs:
1. He who would sacrifice security for liberty, seeks to act against his neighbors freely.
2. Liberty without security is like freeing the tiger from his cage, he will neither thank you, nor withhold his hunger.
3. Liberty is not freedom without security.
4. The monster at your door is not seeking security and sacrificing liberty, it is seeking your life; open the door at your peril.
5. Liberty without security is anarchy.
6. My security establishes a limit on your liberty, not mine.
Although 6 is my favorite, I leave you with the following thought:
Every night I lock my doors, I trade liberty for temporary security; do you want to give up YOUR locks?
I have heard, after some shock has worn off, the same refrain from the left about liberties and security:
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
And I am really tired of the thought process that thinks that any attempt to protect people is a slippery slope to a police state. So, I sat down with the above saying and let it roll around in my pretty little head and I now have some responses to the dweebs:
1. He who would sacrifice security for liberty, seeks to act against his neighbors freely.
2. Liberty without security is like freeing the tiger from his cage, he will neither thank you, nor withhold his hunger.
3. Liberty is not freedom without security.
4. The monster at your door is not seeking security and sacrificing liberty, it is seeking your life; open the door at your peril.
5. Liberty without security is anarchy.
6. My security establishes a limit on your liberty, not mine.
Although 6 is my favorite, I leave you with the following thought:
Every night I lock my doors, I trade liberty for temporary security; do you want to give up YOUR locks?
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
It's the premise...
I was taught a long time ago that when debating someone, the first person to agree with their opponent's premise, loses.
1. What military purpose do the rockets fired by Hezbollah serve? None. They are random shots into civilian areas. They are too rudimentary for anything other than 'terror'.
2. Hezbollah says they will continue to fight until every single Israeli is off Lebanese soil. That's great, but Hezbollah currently is holding two Israeli soldiers hostage in Lebanon. Israel would be HAPPY to leave if Hezbollah would just return their two soldiers - UNHARMED.
Every single sentence out of official Israel should start with the question in #1 and end with Israel's agreement to leave as soon as the two soldiers held by Hezbollah are returned. My preference is that nothing be said between those two points.
1. What military purpose do the rockets fired by Hezbollah serve? None. They are random shots into civilian areas. They are too rudimentary for anything other than 'terror'.
2. Hezbollah says they will continue to fight until every single Israeli is off Lebanese soil. That's great, but Hezbollah currently is holding two Israeli soldiers hostage in Lebanon. Israel would be HAPPY to leave if Hezbollah would just return their two soldiers - UNHARMED.
Every single sentence out of official Israel should start with the question in #1 and end with Israel's agreement to leave as soon as the two soldiers held by Hezbollah are returned. My preference is that nothing be said between those two points.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
If it bleeds, it leads...
...but where is the blood?
In the top of the hour news on Fox at 11 am central, a report was aired about an Israeli 'incursion' into Gaza in the early morning hours. Near the end of the report, we are treated to the usual people being rushed into a hospital for treatment. Flash to a little girl (10-11yr old) with a red print dress. She is on a bed and the doctor/nurse/attendant puts a clump of gauze on her forehead right at the hairline and begins wrapping her head. As everyone KNOWS, a head would bleeds profusely. Yet, there is no blood on her face, her dress or in her hair. There is no indication that her hair is even wet. The picture lasts 3-4 seconds and then we see her again being carried by someone, her head wrapped in gauze. Again, we see no blood in the dressings.
I have often wondered about news coverage. But the coverage of the events in Qana have made me very suspicious of 'injury' coverage. This report from Gaza appears to be an attempt to claim another 'unwarranted' injury of a child.
BTW, the little girl was alert, looking right at the camera and not crying.....curious no?
In the top of the hour news on Fox at 11 am central, a report was aired about an Israeli 'incursion' into Gaza in the early morning hours. Near the end of the report, we are treated to the usual people being rushed into a hospital for treatment. Flash to a little girl (10-11yr old) with a red print dress. She is on a bed and the doctor/nurse/attendant puts a clump of gauze on her forehead right at the hairline and begins wrapping her head. As everyone KNOWS, a head would bleeds profusely. Yet, there is no blood on her face, her dress or in her hair. There is no indication that her hair is even wet. The picture lasts 3-4 seconds and then we see her again being carried by someone, her head wrapped in gauze. Again, we see no blood in the dressings.
I have often wondered about news coverage. But the coverage of the events in Qana have made me very suspicious of 'injury' coverage. This report from Gaza appears to be an attempt to claim another 'unwarranted' injury of a child.
BTW, the little girl was alert, looking right at the camera and not crying.....curious no?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)