On Sun, 11 May 2008 18:55:12 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:
>
>And I don't find it that much of a coincidence that what the
>bankruptcy community (which includes judges, law professors, the DH
>and his brethern) call the Credit Card Relief Act of 2005 is a
>draconian measure that pretty much ensures that lenders, in particular
>credit card companies, can chase a debtor damned near into the after
>life. Hugely more complex than that, of course, but coupled with the
>sub-prime mortgage meltdown, housing skid (particularly here in
>SoCal), and the ripple effect from that (construction, suppliers,
>vendors, etc.), the pandering our elected chowderheads did for the
>credit card companies is shameful and the result should have been
>predictible. And who are the bankruptcy bailouts that *really* are
>'spensive, Loosey? Big Business. Oh, wait! Those are the guys with the
>lobbyists, not the poor slob who lost his job after his wife died of a
>lingering illness that tapped out every resource he had. And, by and
>large, most people who filed for bankruptcy pre-Oct. 15, 2005 (other
>than those who were just trying to "save the date," as it were)
>weren't wallowing in self-indulgent, irresponsible credit card debt,
>but had had a major life change that became catastrophic or
>insupportable.
>
>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...qHw&refer=home
>
>http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20060101.htm
>

that legislation was truly an atrocity. no medical expenses
exemption? no, don't want to mollycoddle deadbeats.

any democrat who voted for it should be hounded from office. i'm
looking at you, joe biden.

(obama voted no; clinton didn't vote; mccain voted yea. but then, no
republican senator voted against. surprise, surprise!)

you yellow-dog pal,
blake