How does Biden address his vote on the bankruptcy bill?

[babylonsister]

I'm listening to Democracy Now!, and it's a big part of the discussion. If Ifill asks him, what's his excuse for voting for this monstrosity?

[EFerrari]

1. He can't say that the bank lobby comes through on election years.

What does that leave? :(

[babylonsister]

11. I hear you; I hope he has some lipstick handy... nt

[lapfog_1]

2. delete

misread the OP

[rurallib]

3. My vague recollection is that there were some articles in the bill

dealing with handling deadbeat dads that Biden wanted really badly. This from a question he answered in Iowa a year ago.

[1corona4u]

4. He tells her, what he has always said,,,,

which is that he was for the bill so that single mothers with children could get their money from X's who filed BK, before the creditors did. There is a floor speech that clearly outlines this. I'll go get it...


Floor Statement: Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005
March 10, 2005


Mr. BIDEN: Mr. President, several years ago, when we were considering this legislation, I spoke here on the Senate floor about some important provisions that I think have been overlooked in our discussions. In my remarks today I will repeat what I said back then, in March of 2001.

We have heard a lot in recent days about how this bill lacks compassion--specifically, that it will hurt women and children who depend on alimony and child support.

Critics claim that by making sure that more money is paid back to other creditors, this bill will make it harder for women and children to get what is coming to them.

I am particularly proud of my record of protecting women and children during my career in the Senate. That record includes the Violence Against Women Act to protect women threatened by domestic violence.

I am here again today to show that, contrary to a lot of the rhetoric that has been tossed around, this bill actually improves the situation of women and children who depend on child support. It specifically targets the problems they face under the current bankruptcy system into a virtual extension of the current national family support collection system.

There may be other aspects of this legislation that we can debate: the balance between creditors and debtors, between different kinds of creditors, or between different kinds of debtors. But on the question of child support and alimony, there should be no dispute.

Because this bill strengthens the collection of alimony. Period.

Over the many years we have discussed this bill, it has earned the support of the National Child Support Enforcement Association, which represents over 60,000 child support professionals.

It has earned the support of the National Association of Attorneys General, which has sent a letter of support personally signed by twenty-seven State attorneys general.

Over the years, the child support protections in this legislation were endorsed by the Attorney General of the State of Vermont.

The Attorney General of Minnesota endorsed them, too, along with the Attorneys General from Illinois, from Massachusetts, and from California, Montana, North Carolina, Michigan, Maryland, Iowa, Hawaii, and Washington.

The child support and alimony protections in S. 256 are so far superior to current law that the National District Attorneys Association, representing more than 7,000 local prosecutors, have endorsed them.

In addition to those national associations, those protections have earned the support of: the California Family Support Council, whose 2,500 enforcement professionals are responsible for carrying out the Federal child support program in California;

The Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council, composed of child support professionals from the private and public sectors west of the Mississippi River;

The California District Attorneys Association, consisting of elected district attorneys from each of every one of California's 58 counties and over 2,500 deputy district attorneys; and finally,

The Corporation Counsel of the City of New York. Yes, even New York City loves this bill.

Why has this legislation earned such overwhelming support from the professionals out in the field and in the trenches who, ever single day, seek and enforce child support orders?

One reason is the hard work of Phillip Strauss, who, speaking for the National Child Support and Enforcement Association, has represented the concerns of child support professionals in testimony before our committee over the years we have debated bankruptcy reform. From his personal experience with the problems women and children face under current bankruptcy law, he brought together his fellow enforcement officials to draft the provisions I am here to discuss.

As Mr. Strauss and his colleagues have told us, right now the treatment of child support and alimony in bankruptcy is a mess, and this bill fixes it.

When a deadbeat dad files for bankruptcy under the current system, what happens to mom and the kids?

Well, if the dad is actually making the payments, those payments stop. That's right, the payments stop cold. Mom then has to find a lawyer or a government advocate, take time off of work, and go to bankruptcy court to try to get those payments started again. And when she goes to court, her claim may not be heard that day, so she'll have to return again and again... or if she's late, she'll miss her day in court.

What else happens under current law? When dad's bill collectors show up in bankruptcy court, mom has to fight with them over dad's assets. There's a good chance that mom not only needs her payments started again, but she is due past support--support payments dad never made last month, last year. She needs him to pay her back for all the payments he failed to make.

And in asserting her claim, she is not the “Number 1" collector in line. Under current law, she is Number 7. That's right – Not So Lucky Number 7. The current Code permits other bill collectors to beat her in the race to get at dad's assets. The current law handicaps her at the starting line. She is forced to wage a fight to make sure she and the kids receive their due.

And what happens after she fights it out with the bill collectors? Well, under the current system, she might be lucky and get every dollar due. But, she may only get a portion of what is due or she may not get one red cent.

That's not right. If a bankrupt household is a sinking ship, then women and children should be protected first. This is what the current law fails to do, but it is what this bill does: it puts women and children first.

S. 256 dictates that even if he files for bankruptcy, dad must continue making those support payments that mom needs to feed and clothe her children. Under this bill, women and children will continue to receive their support payments during bankruptcy, while everybody else, from the credit card bank to the department store, waits for the bankruptcy judge's final order and plan.

That alone would be a major improvement over current law. But that is just the beginning of the advances of this bill over current law.

This bill makes mom “Number 1" and places her ahead of all the bill collectors on her past-due claim. No other bill collector--not the credit card company, not the car loan company, not the student lenders--can jump ahead of a mother and her children. Every other bill collector must stand in line behind the family.

What is so great about the continuation of payments and making mom “Number 1"? As a practical matter, she doesn't have to find room in her hectic schedule to make appearances in a federal bankruptcy court--an intimidating place for most people. She can go to work without interrupting her day. She can complete her errands and pick up her kids after school. Under the bill, she will be automatically first in line on her claims and she will continue to receive her payments during bankruptcy.

When we pass this bill, she does not have to work her way through the bankruptcy system. The system will work for her, not against her.

That's the beauty of this bill: It is self-executing. The provisions to be added to the Bankruptcy Code will function automatically. This is vital. Unrepresented women will not be harmed by the process, as they are under the current Code.

Today, under current law, these women have to get an attorney and go to court to assert their claims.

In addition, under this bill, family support will never be dischargeable. It must be paid in full. All of it.

This is important because, under the current, domestic debts may not be paid in full or at all, believe it or not. Right now, a deadbeat father can file for bankruptcy and come out without paying one penny of support. While his slate is wiped clean, a mother and her children go without. When this bill passes and the President signs it, the law will hold the deadbeat dad's feet to the fire: he will pay, he will pay in full.

There are other important ways that this bill will remove real obstacles to justice that exist in current bankruptcy law.

This bill not only lifts the stay on support payments during bankruptcy, but it adds that, when a wife-beater files for bankruptcy, a domestic violence restraining order against him must remain in effect. It cannot be stayed. And the woman who needs a restraining order against him can still get one.

I have here an order from a family court in my home state of Delaware. A woman went to the court and requested a restraining order against her abuser, who had already filed for bankruptcy. Incredibly, the judge found, under the current Bankruptcy Code, that a proceeding for a domestic abuse restraining order is automatically stayed “by operation of law.”

That's right. We have judges out there right now who look at today's Bankruptcy Code, and they find that filing for bankruptcy stops all proceedings. They find that we have failed to write an exception for proceedings like those for domestic violence. They find their hands are tied.

Then they send a woman in fear for her life off to a federal bankruptcy court to lift the Code's automatic stay by filing a special motion. Unbelievable.

If you think this is fair, if you prefer this state of affairs, then I guess you will vote against this bill. Personally, I am proud of this bill, and I wish that those who are fabricating wild claims about it would stop. If they have their way, the women and children in this country who depend on alimony and child support will be robbed of real protections.

That would be a crime.

Under current law, more than just child support and--alimony are stopped in their tracks by the filing of bankruptcy. That automatic stay, as it is called, stops a lot of other proceedings that could provide real help to women and children.

This legislation changes that. It lifts the stay on a number of methods that family support officials use to go after deadbeat dads, who today can hide behind the bankruptcy system. Unlike current law, this bill would permit reporting the deadbeat's overdue support payments to a consumer reporting agency. Under current law, it would permit restrictions on a deadbeat dad's driving, professional, or recreational licenses. It would permit family support collection officials to intercept his tax refunds.

The legislation also clarifies the definition of support payments, ending conflicting bankruptcy decisions by different courts that today question what support payments actually are.

Most significantly, though, this bill prevents a father from completing bankruptcy unless he has paid all his support obligations due after he filed for bankruptcy.

Let's think about this. Under current law, a father filed for bankruptcy and can complete bankruptcy under a plan that relieves him of his past-due domestic obligations. Under the bill, however, this scenario will become obsolete. A father will never complete bankruptcy until he is paid up. He must pay.

Moreover, the bill protects mom during a bankruptcy plan. Once a father is under a bankruptcy plan and he fails to make his support payments, a mother can march to the bankruptcy court and ask the court to dismiss his plan. The court will call dad back in to explain himself. He doesn't want to make payments during his bankruptcy plan? Fine, he can be thrown out of bankruptcy, and find himself back at square one.

Some claim that this bill lacks compassion. Well, right now, women who want child support orders or who already have orders but fail to enforce them slip through the cracks. If we pass this bill, the Bankruptcy Code will empower women with the information they need.

Section 219 of the bill requires the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee to notify a woman of her rights to use the services of her state child support enforcement agency and gives her the agency's address and phone number. Better yet, the Trustee likewise notifies the agency independently of the woman's claim. This is striking.

Women who need help will get the information they need, because the bankruptcy system is charged with reaching out to family support professionals--acting under federal family support collection law--and putting them at the service of the women and children who need them.

This last item needs stressing, Mr. President, because so much has been made about what will happen after someone who owes family support payments comes out of bankruptcy. The claim is that other “more powerful” creditors will push women and children aside and strip the dad bare before he can make payments to his family.

That makes for a moving story, Mr. President, but it is fiction, not fact.

This legislation requires the bankruptcy Trustee to notify both the woman and the family support collection professionals about the dad's release from bankruptcy, his last known address, the name and address of his employer, and a list naming all the bill collectors who will still be collecting from dad.

This section helps mothers both during and after bankruptcy.

The new notification process will help a mother and the support enforcement agencies keep track of a father, where he is working, and what other bills he is required to pay.

Because of this monitoring, which would be put in place by the bankruptcy system under this bill, mothers and collection agencies can more easily go to court and get that portion of a father's wages that now really belongs to them. Dad may complete his bankruptcy plan, but his obligations do not stop.

These new protections guarantee that family support claims of women and children,will always receive “Number 1" priority – during and after bankruptcy. The process for obtaining a portion of a father's wages – through a wage attachment – gives priority to domestic support orders over orders held by bill collectors, including credit card companies.

That money is taken out of his paycheck before he even sees it. He can't be forced by “powerful creditors” to choose between them and his alimony or child support. Those payments are automatic. Again, the picture of greedy bill collectors rushing to the front of the line makes for dramatic storytelling. But it is only that--storytelling.

The legislation builds on the existing Federal Child Support Enforcement Program, that exists to help women of all walks of life receive their support payments. By tying Federal dollars to federal standards, current law requires state and local support enforcement agencies to enforce national standards.

A couple of the requirements under Federal family support law are: first, that immediate wage withholding should be included in all child support orders; and second, that the withholding of child support obligations be given top priority over every other legal process under State law against the same wages.

Therefore, after bankruptcy, when a mother and the bill collectors walk into court to make claims against the father's wages, the mother is again ``Number 1'' in priority and those bill collectors fall in line behind her.

In response to some of my colleagues concerns--concerns that I would certainly share if I listened to some of the claims out there --I looked for ways to make the system even tighter.

I found out that the only way to do that was to require a wage attachment, whether the woman wanted one or not. Maybe she wants nothing to do with an abusive husband. Maybe she is afraid for him to know her address. We have to leave that decision up to her, but she will get all the help we can give to help her know her rights.

As I said, I looked for ways to make this bill stronger in support of women and children who depend on support payments, and I simply couldn't find any.

Even if a father does not earn wages, then support enforcement agencies have many tools to use to ensure that the mother and her children are paid. A support enforcement agency can intercept taxes and unemployment benefits, revoke driver's, professional and recreational licenses (like those used for fishing, hunting, and boating), deny passports, and institute criminal and contempt actions.

That is why, even compared to any imaginary “powerful creditor” you might be able to conjure up, mothers and children have real, tangible protections and resources at their disposal to bring a first priority claim against a father's wages after bankruptcy.

(cont)

[1corona4u]

7. ...

Finally, let me conclude where I began: with the enthusiasm for this legislation that we have heard from the folks in the trenches.
Here is what the National Association of Attorneys General has asserted: the bill “improve the treatment of domestic support obligations” and when the current Code's “obstacles are removed, as this legislation seeks to accomplish, we believe that our State and local support offices will continue to be able to collect these monies effectively, regardless of whether other lower-priority creditors remain.”
As I mentioned before, the Association's letter was personally signed by the State Attorneys General from twenty-seven States, including the--State Attorneys General from Vermont, Minnesota, Illinois, Massachusetts, California, North Carolina, Michigan, Montana, Maryland, Iowa, Hawaii, and Washington.
The National District Attorneys Association, with more than 7,000 local prosecutors in their membership, does “not believe that after bankruptcy it would be more difficult to collect support simply because credit card debts are not discharged. To the contrary, support collectors have vastly more effective, and meaningful, collection remedies before a bankruptcy case is filed, or after the case is completed, than any other financial institution... It is under the current law, during bankruptcy, that support collectors have the greatest difficulty because they are in competition with all other creditors for bankruptcy estate assets and because their most effective collections remedies have been stayed ... This legislation provides a major improvement to the problems facing child support creditors in bankruptcy proceedings.”
I support the reform that the enforcement professionals call for, from New York City to California, from Minnesota to Vermont, from Massachusetts to Michigan. I want to save women and children from having to fight their way through a broken bankruptcy system. I want to make the system work for them, not against them.
A vote against this bill is a vote in favor of the current broken system. A vote for this bill is a vote to protect family support payments in bankruptcy.
That is why I support this bill.





Can someone please tell me WHY there are lines through the text??? It always does this....

[Egnever]

38. Joe is always standing up for the ladies.

I wonder what makes him such a strong advocate.

Test test test

You have an s in <> after improve in your post that is creating those lines.

[1corona4u]

43. Maybe something he learned in the past...

Just a guess.

[napi21]

5. I don't know what Biden will say, but I think most of the bankruptcy bill

was a good thing that eliminated a lot of abuse. It wasn't perfect, and I do wish it would have included a waiver for debt incurred from medical expenses. Even requiring higher monthly payments was good for the consumer because far too many people were only paying the minimum pmt. and that would NEVER pay off their debt!

[LynneSin]

9. I agree but I do think parts of the bill will have to be revisited

to put protection in for those who are dealing with bills due to medical or other issues not related to abuse of credit.

But we'll never get that done with Bush in the white house or McCain Palin

[napi21]

12. I've heard a number of diff. Dems talking about doing that. I don't

recall exactly which Dems, but if we can get a larger majority in both houses of congress, and the presidency, I think we'll see exactly that happen.

[LynneSin]

6. He's from Delaware, it's the same reason why Alaskans support big oil

because that's what we have in our state.

You can walk 5 feet in Delaware without running into someone who works for the bank or is related to someone who works for a bank.

[1corona4u]

8. That is not the reason. Maybe a small fraction of it, but read what he said.

[LynneSin]

10. The deadbeat dad thing - yeah that too

But you'll find that senators and representatives that have an overwelming industry in their state tend to work with them moreso than others. You'll see the same thing with Mary Landrieu and Oil Companies and same with Blanche Lincoln and anything related to Wal-mart.

Consider this - money I've donated to the campaign would be listed under the banking industry because I too work for a bank. It's just how it works

[1corona4u]

13. Exactly on the money thing...

most people don't get that...they see the donations and think; whoa, look how much money THAT bank paid Biden. When in reality, it's actually people who WORK for the banks.

[babylonsister]

18. That may be, but to the exclusion of ordinary Americans his vote

affected so negatively? The excuse that Delaware is full of banks sounds lame to me. What about the little guy Biden is so proud of supporting?
I do like Joe, but I hope he can come up with a better excuse.

[1corona4u]

19. He doesn't need an excuse...

did you read his statement? I'm confident that he will cite what I have posted above.

[babylonsister]

21. So single mothers could get their money from ex's? That's a

small slice of Americans who are suffering. So you tell me. When someone has a grave illness that costs thousands and thousands of bucks-after their insurance covers whatever they cover, and they can't file for bankruptcy but now have to sell their home and use their life savings (and who among us wouldn't if it was our loved one suffering), what were their options? And I wonder where those people live now.

Protecting moms and kids is great, but this bill screwed so many people who didn't deserve it.

[1corona4u]

26. Anyone can file for BK....

Why are you saying they can't file for a BK? The only difference is, IF they have DMI, they have to go to chapter 13, and pay part of the debt back. I'd have to go back to look at the bill again, since it's been last year that I last looked at it, so I'm not sure on the selling their home thing.

Oh, and for the record; here are the stats on who files for BK;

Average age: 38;
44% of filers are couples;
30% are women filing alone;
26% are men filing alone;
Slightly better educated than the general population;
Two out of three have lost a job;
Half have experienced a serious health problem;
Fewer than 9% have not suffered a job loss, medical event or divorce;
Highest bankruptcy rates: Tennessee, Utah, Georgia, Alabama.

[babylonsister]

31. You are in denial. Biden isn't 'god', he has his faults. But I'm not

going to argue with you anymore. I don't see the value of tearing Biden down just to prove you're wrong. But read this, and think about it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/6/63144/06015

[1corona4u]

35. I am not in denial, and I am not arguing with you, I'm stating the facts.

I've provided everything needed to back up what I am saying. I don't see what your issue is with me pointing out the things he has already said. And the facts of the BK bill.

I have nothing to think about. I've been saying the same thing about Biden for over a year now. And, not just because I supported him, but because it was said in his own words, which I think are sincere.

[babylonsister]

45. Read the link. Not anyone could file for bankruptcy-you are wrong.

Biden has one big wart that won't go away, and this is it. And I'm done with this topic where you're concerned.

See ya around!

[LisaM]

33. I wish they would revisit the incorporation laws

so that companies would incorporate in their own states, instead of Delaware (or off shore).

[Stop Cornyn]

14. Shh! We must ignore the fact that Biden's a gaffe machine with a record of putting banking interests

ahead of consumer interests and who does not bring even one single electoral vote to the table.

Thankfully, McCain's choice of Palin makes Obama's otherwise disappointing choice of Biden seems genius.

[1corona4u]

15. You forgot your sarcasm tag...

:eyes: Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure you will, but IIFC, DE brings 3 EV's to the table, don't they? Yeah, it's not a bucket full, but so what.

[babylonsister]

16. I think Biden was a great choice. You're right, he's not perfect, but

I'm thinking his foreign policy experience and his just plain old experience brings a lot to the ticket. Who would you have preferred Obama selected, oh wise one? Do tell, 'cause I think of all the potential picks, Biden had the most to offer.

[Stop Cornyn]

24. I'd have prefered someone who wasn't a three and a half decade beltway insider and who brought a

swing-state closer to our camp and who would have brought executive experience to compliment Obama Senatorial experience.

Among those I would have preferred, I would count these:

A. Six Outside the Beltway Governors Who Would Have Reinforced the Change Message (instead of trampling it as Biden did)

Kathleen Sebelius,
Bill Richardson,
Brian Schweitzer,
Janet Napolitano,
Tim Kaine, and
Ted Strickland

B. Three Outside the Beltway Military Leaders With Experience as Non-Partisans and Non-Politicians

Wes Clark,
Anthony Zinni, and
James Jones

C. Five Inside the Beltway Leaders Who At Least Would Have Brought Swing-State Electoral Advantages

Claire McCaskill,
Bill Nelson,
Tim Roemer,
Evan Bayh, and
Tom Daschle


D. At Least She Would Have Brought an Important Constituency to The Table

Hillary Clinton

Among these 15 preferable options, these are my top five: Kathleen Sebelius, Bill Richardson, Brian Schweitzer, Wes Clark, and Claire McCaskill.

[1corona4u]

28. Obama chose wisely. He just did.

Whether or not you, and others agree.

[Stop Cornyn]

32. Hope you're right. Obama's choice of Biden gave McCain the opportunity to steal the "change" theme.

I'm hopeful that McCain can't sell that message, but Obama certainly gave McCain the opportunity to try and sell the McCain-Palin ticket as the change ticket.

[babylonsister]

34. You're wrong. McBush stole the 'change' meme because he

picked Palin and could no longer run on 'experience'. Biden had nothing to do with it.

[jberryhill]

42. It's not about selling - it's about governing

Yep, McCain has "stolen" the change meme.

It was handed to him, and he's been running with it like a madman, showing that he'll change from four positions in five days.

Oh, you want "change", okay, I'll change.

I believe undecided voters are recognizing that "crazy shit" might involve a lot of change, and that "change" is just another word. They are trying to decide for whom to vote for president.

[jberryhill]

36. To how many of them does Barack Obama feel personally close and can trust?

Senator Obama gave quite an extended explanation of his choice.

One can play the "political" game and look at things like "who brings what", but I've come to realize that Obama really means it when he says he isn't doing politics as usual, and intends to actually govern this country.

All of your analysis is about "messaging", "image", or political calculation.

If you really look at this campaign, it becomes more clear that we're talking about the guy whose mom got him up before sunrise as a kid to go over his lessons, and actually believes in this stuff.

Joe Biden may be a lot of things, but having spent enough time with him in a small group setting I'm convinced that he's a believer in this country, what it stands for, and that he's truly passionate about it.

This is really more than a presidential election campaign - it is really a movement to change politics.

[Stop Cornyn]

54. Even if McCain feels personally close and trustful of Palin, he gets no pass on his awful choice.

I am not inclined to apply a different standard to Obama. Obama-Biden is a hundred times better than McCain-Palin, and Biden is separately better than Palin. That's where we should leave it.

Biden's record on banking issues is simply not reconcilable with my deeply-held values. There are other issues where I can celebrate Biden's record, but banking and consumer protection against predatory lending are not among those issues. Let's focus, instead, on those other issues where Biden's record is better or on the fact that McCain's record on banking issues is worse even that Biden's.

[Cha]

17. It's not disappointing to most of us...Biden is

the best choice for our VP no matter how much you wanted someone else.

And, more importantly Obama wants to work with him.

[Stop Cornyn]

27. Let's agree that Obama's choice of Biden was a thousand times better than McCain's choice of Palin

[Cha]

39. I agree that Biden is the best one for the job.

End of story.

[Cha]

40. I agree that Biden is the best one for the job.

End of story.

[treestar]

20. I am just filing a bankruptcy for a client.

I hadn't filed one since before the reform. I just filed a couple of them recently.

The only difference is that now the debtor has to attend credit counseling classes. This creates some extra forms to fill out.

It also appears that some people (but not all) might make enough income that they will be pushed into Chapter 13, which requires a payment plan. You do a calculation. In neither of my cases did they have to even be considered for it. When you look at the form for making the calculation, it takes into effect many factors so as to not put you in that category if the debts are sympathetic - they also take into account some sort of average standard of living.

So it didn't appear to me that the changes really make a big difference - they only get at people who might have a lot of consumer debt but still have disposable income and prevent them from discharging the debt altogether.

[jberryhill]

22. Note that all of the OMG! about this bill is hypothetical...

As you note, the real world is different.

[blondeatlast]

44. Interesting. My family had to file just before the bill due to--you guessed it--medical expenses.

We would have liked to pay at least part of our debts but the 100k+ medical would have sestroyed us.

Very interesting to see how it plays out in the real world, not quite the catastrophe even I thought it was at the time.

Thanks for the insight from the trenches.

[jillan]

23. I've heard him answer this before.

He's got an answer, and he is good at spinning it.

You guys know how much I love Biden - but this is one area where I have a major difference with him.


My final answer to you question - don't worry. Joe's got it under control.

[susanwy]

25. On medical waviers...

Biden has said repeatedly (both in his own run for the presidency and as the VP candidate) that bankruptcy laws need to be changed to make easier to waive off crushing medical expenses. If asked he needs to stress this. He gave in on that amendment during bankruptcy reform in trade for support from republicans for the dead beat dad provisions (that is how bipartisan stuff gets done, give and take, thus no bill is perfect and never pleases everyone). And don't forget, republicans were in power when that bill passed, he got what he could.

I had a hard time with this vote when I first supported Biden,as I had family that didn't file in time, before changes in the law (however they waited of their own accord, despite our urges to get it done). Now they are even further in debt due to the bills from my sister-in-laws breast cancer and now my brother-in-laws back surgery. But, I think Biden has explained it adequately. Plus, I just couldn't fault the guy for somewhat protecting the primary business in his state as a senator, after all that is in part his job (even though those businesses are unscrupulous IMHO). However, as VP his is now free to change his position and no longer has any obligations to the credit card companies (he should NOT say this in the debate). I'm confident he will work to change the law.

Lastly, one thing I really liked about Biden when he ran for president is part of his health care reform package. It included "catastrophic" coverage where the feds would kick in for out of pocket medical expenses over a certain amount ($100,000??, I don't recall the exact amount). Thus, if you had no insurance, or insurance had run out, you could still get care after a car accident, or cancer, or a transplant ect, ect. I know one family with well over 1 mil in bills (son with Lukemia, Mom with ALS..tragic), this would have been a god-send in an otherwise horrific situation. Insurance companies couldn't claim someone else's high costs in your pool forced your rates up and NO one would go bankrupt over medical expenses.

[jberryhill]

29. How many primary debates was he in? 20-some?

At the outset, I refused to support bankruptcy reform until fundamental changes were made. I fought to establish a "safe harbor" for those below their state's median income. I also insisted on a provision requiring lenders to post a clear warning about the dangers of making minimum monthly payments, one of the worst debt traps for consumers.

This bill establishes unprecedented protections for child support and alimony, making bankruptcy part of the enforcement system for women and children, who now will be at the head of the line, in front of every other creditor. Is this bill perfect? No. But over several congresses it has earned the kind of bipartisan consensus only balanced legislation can achieve.

- Less bad than when proposed
- Women and children first
- fought amendments to make it harsher
- Not perfect, and needs to be re-visited in light of present circumstances

and

- we need a comprehensive health care strategy in this country to end bankruptcies brought on by medical bills

He'll do fine.

[1corona4u]

30. Exactly. Thanks for posting that.

[graywarrior]

37. I'm still pissed over that one.

Especially since it affected me directly.

[graywarrior]

41. That vote directly affected me, so I'm still pissed over it.

[babylonsister]

47. But according to some, anyone could file for bankruptcy.

:shrug: I knew someone would pipe in and say they were adversely affected, so thanks, though I'm sorry you were affected.
Biden's a good guy but not without faults. I hope he has some good responses prepared-that was the intent of this post.

[graywarrior]

48. Everyone has faults.

I can get past it. He's getting his punishment by people asking him about it. Who knows, maybe they'll reverse the bill.

[Yanez Houston Jordan]

52. That's BS. I'd love to re-hash this debate which is part of why Biden so poorly in the primary but

we should look forward instead.

[babylonsister]

53. Good. I don't want to rehash it either. I'm looking forward, but

thought it worthy of discussion, and what Biden's response might be. That's sometimes hard to do here.

[Yanez Houston Jordan]

49. The vote quashed my sister-in-law's bankruptcy caused by her husband leaving her with three kids in

college and two house payments (a home and an up-side-down condo they bought so one of the kids could stay at it while she was in college).

My sister-in-law's bankruptcy attorney shot himself in the head about a year after the bankruptcy bill ruined the financial hopes of all his clients.

I've always been a Democrat whose primary issue was the fight against poverty and the protection of the working poor. To me, Biden's votes in support of predatory lending rank about the same as Bill Clinton's welfare "reform." I voted for Bill and, similarly, I'll vote for Obama-Biden, but I won't ever be happy about the back half of our ticket.

[graywarrior]

50. He needs to apologize and promise to change it.

[Yanez Houston Jordan]

55. Agreed. But he also needs to remember it was a Republican bill McCain supported so they can't attack

him for his vote.

[Yanez Houston Jordan]

46. He can't justify his vote eliminating many middle class bankruptcy protections so he should just say

"I tried to reach across party lines and I voted against my party and with the Republicans to support the Republican bankruptcy bill. When John McCain does this he calls it being a 'maverick' so I guess I'm a bit of a maverick, too. I'm sure John McCain and Gov. Palin will be the first to defend me on this vote because John McCain also voted for the 2005 Republican bankruptcy bill."

[Support the ACLU]

56. BINGO!

[Czolgosz]

60. Agreed.

[emulatorloo]

51. HERE IS HOW HE ANSWERED IT ON MEET THE PRESS SEPTEMBER 2008

Sorry to yell but I think it might get lost in the clutter:


"Number three, I blocked the bank–first three bankruptcy bills that the credit card companies wanted.

I would not support a bankruptcy bill until they did three things.

They put women and children first.

Every single social welfare agency relating to alimony and child support supported this bill.

Eight-five senators supported this bill. So try as people might to make to this out."

[mvd]

59. Sounds like a good way to frame it

I think it was still a big mistake and he should have taken the lead supporting a bill that just focused on that. But without admitting a mistake, that explanation could play well.

[chicagoexpat]

57. It's the right thing to do right now & he's not stupid enough to line up w/ the most rabid right

wingers who simply want to shut the economy & the gov't down for the sake of ideological purity.

Unlike some

DU smart people: "Yeah! Let's follow the Republicans over the cliff! That's the answer!"

McCain Campaign Soliciting Trolls to Invade Web Site Forums

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7262075

Hope you can bail out all the states w/ ur personal check book.I'm sure u can afford it

State of Massachusetts denied credit!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7256498&mesg_id=7256498

[Nye Bevan]

58. "I made a mistake. I apologize.

And I'm going to do everything I can to make it right".

In a near 40-year mostly distinguished legislative career a couple of mistakes are inevitable. Admitting that this was one of them should help defuse the issue.