Why Did So Many Democratic Senators Vote For The Bankruptcy Bill,

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Including all the senators that are running for president who were in the Senate at the the time of the vote?

[Dr.Phool]

1. Follow the money.

Campaign contributions. Blue dogs. DLC.

One former congressman who didn't run for re-election for Congress, but decided to run for Governor instead (Aw,fuck it, it was Jim Davis) told my former campaign manager, a good friend of his, that they were mislead as to what was in the bill.

And I say bullshit!

Am I wrong to believe that a Congressperson or Senator should actually READ a bill before they vote on it? Seems like everyone, other than them, knew what was in the bill.

[jpgray]

2. The really bad actors were those who consistently voted with Republicans

Sen. Nelson (D - Nebraska)
Sen. Johnson (D - South Dakota)
Sen. Carper (D - Delaware)
Sen. Biden (D - Delaware)

The other big story on this bill, outside from it being a horrible bill to begin with, was all the mitigating amendments proposed by Democrats. One nice one was authored by Schumer, which would limit the rich get-out-of-bankruptcy-free card of protection trusts. Another great one came from Durbin, which made an exemption for Enron-style corporate abuses that lead to earnings/retirement savings disasters for employees. One from Corzine exempted those who file bankruptcy as caregivers of an ill or elderly family member. Kennedy proposed amendments to exempt those whose debt was caused by serious medical problems. One great one proposed by Durbin was for protecting servicemen and women from predatory lending.

All of these were struck down on essentially party lines, with the above bad actors being the main culprits on the Democratic side and essentially -all- republicans -always- voting against. As for the Democrats who voted for it in the end, shame on them.

Note it passed before several times, and Clinton vetoed it at least once. The MBNA and other banking/credit card industries gave over $56 million to politicians in '04, mostly to Republicans. So once again the Democrats have the dubious honor of trying to fix it as best they could, and then bizarrely voting for it after the Republicans defeated all efforts to do so. That it would have passed anyway hardly excuses the action.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. If I Was Broke ( No Assets At All) I Wouldn't Declare Bankruptcy Under These Laws

I would take my chances...

[Netbeavis]

14. what state is the home of credit cards & processing centers?

Delaware.

Home of Sen. Joe Biden.

[karynnj]

3. I don't think Dodd Did.

2001:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00236

2005:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044

Biden voted for both - and it has been explained that it is because the credit card industry is centered in Delaware. Edwards was a centrist conservative Democrat and this bill had the support of all the centrist Democrats. Hillary voted to filbuster in 2005 and missed a hopeless final vote because Bill Clinton was in the hospital for follow up heart surgery. I don't know why she voted for the 2001 bill - but there are plenty of Clinton supporters who can research what she said at the time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I Don't Think HRC Would Vote For It

Didn't Bill Clinton veto a similar bill or threaten to veto a similar bill...

[jpgray]

5. He vetoed it at least once

I don't remember if it was sent to him again or not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. It Was One Bill That Really Bothered Me...

It was a "statement" bill...

[a kennedy]

11. I agree with the "statement" bill,

and it pissed me off so many Dems voted for it. :mad:

[karynnj]

8. Look at the link she did vote for it

Clinton did veto an earlier one. They are allowed to have different opinions. I'm sure both had statement when each acted. Here is the clearest thing I could find quickly by googling - it does explain her shifts. She obviously thought the changes she got made it over all worth voting for in 2001.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/clinton-and-the-bankruptcy-law/

[FreeStateDemocrat]

9. Corporate whores.

[SoCalDem]

10. Finance industry "owns" most of them..both parties

If you go to these sharks asking them for money , election cycle after election cycle, how could you expect them NOT to tell you what they want?? and how could you NOT give it to them, when you KNOW you will be asking them for more money in a year or two?

The ONLY way we will ever get fair elections and decent laws is to have FREE air time for all candidates above a certain threshhold..

make lobbying a FELONY, punishable by prison..

Limit campaigning time to SIX MONTHS..by holding regional primaries..1month apart

EVERY CANDIDATE GETS THE SAME AMOUNT OF PUBLIC MONEY..AND NO MORE.

Set up binding term limits..

4 yr house ( 2 term max)
6 yr senate ( 2 term max)

(one could serve 2 terms in the house, and the 2 in the senate and vice versa).but that's IT!!

We have almost 300 MILLION people in thiscountry, and the faux aristocracy we have now, is for the birds.. let it go..

This would almost ensure that people who were dedicated to public service would rise to the top.. The grifters would npot want to waste their precious time if they knew they could not spend a lifetime skinning us alive..

NO PENSIONS unless one manages to serve 20 years... only benefits while they serve (just like the reservists have)

and once one is out of office, they would have a FIVE year "moratorium" which would prohibit them from working in any job that advises, or derives income from government.

ie. no think tanks, no boards of directors for companies who take subsidies from government, no shifty legal offices who work behind the scenes trying to "move legislation"..

[cali]

12. Ugh to most of your ideas.

No to making lobbying a felony. That's unconstitutional and a really bad idea.

No, no and no, to term limits. I want to vote for who I want to vote for in my state. I'm happy that Pat Leahy is still in the Senate- 33 years now.

No to to NO PENSIONS until after 20 years. You've made that nearly impossible by your term limit plan, anyway. And two years, despite the problems with endless campaigning, is preferable than not getting the chance to assess their performance more frequently.

As for your 5 year moratorium, do you realize that most ex-legislators wouldn't even be able to teach at a University.

Not very well thought through, though I do agree about public financing.

[Benhurst]

13. Do you really expect politicians to vote for the interests of mere citizens

over those of corporations? In BushAmerica, corporations are people, too. They have feelings, and, more importantly, rights. And they have deep pockets.

Increasingly, the corporations are the American government.

God is still paid lip-service ; but it's now One Nation Under Corporation.

We're #1!
:patriot:
Bombs away!