Silliopolous
02-09-2005, 15:31
An interesting side note on this disaster: Not only have these people lost EVERYTHING, under the new Bankruptcy Laws they are even more fucked than they thought.
You see, the new means tests involved as part of this new legislation includes such things as evaluating income over a period of time. So that job these people had before the hurricane are still to be considered under the means tests, even if the job, place of employment, boss, etc no longer exists.
Got some Federal Money to get you back on your feet?
Under the new laws, this money ALSO will be counted as income and subject to recovery by the credit card companies, so - in effect - the Federal Government will be paying out assistance to the victims of the flood, but this money may very well get diverted directly to the credit card companies.
Feeling nauseous yet?
Thinking "well, they ca't think of EVERYTHING when they make new laws. I'm sure they'll close the loophople...."?
This very scenario WAS thought of. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee offered an amendment in the Judiciary Committee to exempt victims of disasters from the bill. Her amendment was summarily rejected along party lines. In other words, the Republicans BLOCKED an ammenedment to the bill to provide relief to victims of disasters. The credit card companies needed the money more than the citizens I guess
The following is a transcript from Congress, April 8 of this year:
Ms. JACKSON LEE. My friends, this is a circumstance that will confront all of our States, whether it is a flood, a hurricane, certainly any natural disaster that we can imagine has confronted individual States. We know recently that--we know recently that Florida suffered a historic three hurricanes or more in 2004. Families that are affected by natural disasters such as a hurricane in Florida or the mudslides in California should not have to apply their scarce relief effort monies to bankruptcy debt. The intent in providing Federal and State monies to families who are victims of such natural disasters is to relieve the burden that the disaster has caused, not to increase their net worth.
Bankruptcy reform should address many specific issues, such as the negligent mismanagement of money, but hurt those who are already suffering from flooding or collapsed roof or house that has gone out to sea is absolutely ridiculous.
I'd ask my colleagues to support this, which exempts the benefits that you've received if you have suffered a natural disaster. Again, I started out my concern about this legislation in that it is class warfare. I simply ask my colleagues to find some sense of balance to be able to balance this legislation with those middle-class and working families who are simply trying to make ends meet. We have already denied veterans and those returning from Iraq. We've denied those with catastrophic injuries. I can't imagine that there's not one of us that has not been in a community that has suffered a natural disaster.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentlewoman yield back?
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield back.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the amendment. Those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no? The noes appear to have it. The noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to."
You see, the new means tests involved as part of this new legislation includes such things as evaluating income over a period of time. So that job these people had before the hurricane are still to be considered under the means tests, even if the job, place of employment, boss, etc no longer exists.
Got some Federal Money to get you back on your feet?
Under the new laws, this money ALSO will be counted as income and subject to recovery by the credit card companies, so - in effect - the Federal Government will be paying out assistance to the victims of the flood, but this money may very well get diverted directly to the credit card companies.
Feeling nauseous yet?
Thinking "well, they ca't think of EVERYTHING when they make new laws. I'm sure they'll close the loophople...."?
This very scenario WAS thought of. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee offered an amendment in the Judiciary Committee to exempt victims of disasters from the bill. Her amendment was summarily rejected along party lines. In other words, the Republicans BLOCKED an ammenedment to the bill to provide relief to victims of disasters. The credit card companies needed the money more than the citizens I guess
The following is a transcript from Congress, April 8 of this year:
Ms. JACKSON LEE. My friends, this is a circumstance that will confront all of our States, whether it is a flood, a hurricane, certainly any natural disaster that we can imagine has confronted individual States. We know recently that--we know recently that Florida suffered a historic three hurricanes or more in 2004. Families that are affected by natural disasters such as a hurricane in Florida or the mudslides in California should not have to apply their scarce relief effort monies to bankruptcy debt. The intent in providing Federal and State monies to families who are victims of such natural disasters is to relieve the burden that the disaster has caused, not to increase their net worth.
Bankruptcy reform should address many specific issues, such as the negligent mismanagement of money, but hurt those who are already suffering from flooding or collapsed roof or house that has gone out to sea is absolutely ridiculous.
I'd ask my colleagues to support this, which exempts the benefits that you've received if you have suffered a natural disaster. Again, I started out my concern about this legislation in that it is class warfare. I simply ask my colleagues to find some sense of balance to be able to balance this legislation with those middle-class and working families who are simply trying to make ends meet. We have already denied veterans and those returning from Iraq. We've denied those with catastrophic injuries. I can't imagine that there's not one of us that has not been in a community that has suffered a natural disaster.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentlewoman yield back?
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield back.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the amendment. Those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no? The noes appear to have it. The noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to."