T1B

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Second, even under the old laws, the U.S. Trustee's Office in this area was rather aggressive in using the substantial abuse provision to force higher income debtors into Chapter 13. Here's one example.

I would just like to take a moment and rack the fuck out of that judge.

Husker4ever wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:I picked the wrong year to buy a Ridgeline.

Rack! I thought I saw pain on the face of lady driving a Ford Excursion (v-10, 9 mpg) down the street recently. Thing needed a good carwash....bet she couldn't afford one.

I call BS. My V10 X gets at least 11mpg in town. Combine that wuth my wifes Suburban and I'm contemplating suicide next time I hit the pumps.

BSmack wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Second, even under the old laws, the U.S. Trustee's Office in this area was rather aggressive in using the substantial abuse provision to force higher income debtors into Chapter 13. Here's one example.

I would just like to take a moment and rack the fuck out of that judge.

On that case, yes. Carltons easily could have filed Chapter 13. Kornfields were statutorily ineligible for Chapter 13 (the deficiency judgment on their foreclosed home raised their unsecured debt past the statutory limit), but they could have filed Chapter 11. Or, if that was too onerous and expensive, perhaps a little pre-bankruptcy negotiation with the creditor might have induced the creditor to reduce its claim within the statutory limits. Under the philosophy of "something is always better than nothing," the creditor might have done it in exchange for a 100% Chapter 13 Plan.

But that brings up an interesting pont. Imho, the "substantial abuse" statute, if used properly, had enough teeth to weed out at least the most egregious cases. Perhaps the 2005 revisions to the Bankruptcy Code went a bit too far, in that many of the cases it will force into Chapter 13 are cases where the Debtor should be allowed to file a Chapter 7.

Another problem with the Means Test is that it rewards precisely the sort of behavior it should not. Take this example. Two debtors, we'll call them Debtor A and Debtor B, live in the same area, have the same household size and earn the same income, which is slightly more than the state median for their family size. Debtor A, about six months prior to filing bankruptcy, buys a late-model Lexus, which he finances and which results in payments of $500/month. Debtor B, in a last-ditch effort to economize prior to filing bankruptcy, continues to drive the much older car he had been driving, which has long since been paid off. Debtor A receives a higher allowance for vehicle expenditures because of this, and the end result may very well be that Debtor A passes the Means Test and can file a Chapter 7, whereas Debtor B fails the Means Test and is required to file a Chapter 13.

I had a relatively simple suggestion for Bankruptcy Reform which, of course, Congress never seriously considered, but which would have made much more sense, imho:

• Abolish the statutory debt limitations for Chapter 13 eligibility. That would steer more high-income, high-debt individuals, such as the Kornfields, toward Chapter 13.
• Recognizing that bankruptcy does not treat all creditors equally, I would have made all claims held by individuals which are otherwise dischargeable in bankruptcy non-dischargeable to the extent of the balance of the claim or $1,000, whichever is less. Imho, that would achieve a balancing test between the stated legislative intent of a fresh start for the "honest but unfortunate" debtor and protection of the creditors who are most vulnerable in bankruptcy.
• Abolish §523(a)(8), the provision which exempts most student loans from discharge in bankruptcy. Under the present system, student loans are treated much the same way in bankruptcy as are delinquent tax debts, debts for fraud, debts for intentional torts, debts for DWI/DUI convictions, and child support. In fact, depending on a debtor's particular situation, it might actually be easier to discharge a debt for past-due income taxes than to discharge a debt for student loans. There simply is no rational policy basis for treating student loans in such a manner, a few atypical anecdotes to the contrary notwithstanding.

Would have made a lot more sense than what was enacted, but most members of Congress haven't been inside a Bankruptcy Court in years, if ever.

So to be fair, is everyone here who has made the claim that Bush is in bed with the oil companies (as a former oilman himself) saying that if Obama or the Hellbeast is elected to our country's highest office that oil prices will soon drop back down to "normal" levels, ie $2 a gallon? If so, stop bogartin' that crack pipe and let me have a turn...

Rooster

Good reads there Terry. It's about time you posted something worth reading.

Blind squirrel meets nut.

Rooster wrote:So to be fair, is everyone here who has made the claim that Bush is in bed with the oil companies (as a former oilman himself) saying that if Obama or the Hellbeast is elected to our country's highest office that oil prices will soon drop back down to "normal" levels, ie $2 a gallon? If so, stop bogartin' that crack pipe and let me have a turn...

Rooster

But hanging the Chimp--and Cheney, and Rummy, Rice, et al--would certainly be a good first step in Scouring Off, in resetting our basic approach to the planet and our means of moving about upon it. Really, we all know that our present "supply and demand" excuse is hollow and poisonous. We all know that the use of petroleum for fuel is obviously wrong and primitive.

Let's start by hanging the Chimp. It's right. Really.

88 wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:We all know that the use of petroleum for fuel is obviously wrong and primitive.

If it isn't for fuel, what is the right and modern use of petroleum?

88 wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:We all know that the use of petroleum for fuel is obviously wrong and primitive.

If it isn't for fuel, what is the right and modern use of petroleum?

Nick's tired of getting dryfucked.

Update on the e-85 thingie.

A rough calculation shows that I'm averaging almost 13 mpg on the fake gas whereas I was averaging about 17 with the real thingie- imo.

At $2.46/gal for e-85, that equals .19¢ per mile- or no savings whatsuchever unless the real stuff goes over $3.33/gal.

In other words, the fake gas just isn't cost æffective. In still other words, e-85 is a fucking SCAM!, btw

Cuda wrote:unless the real stuff goes over $3.33/gal.

$3.33 would be a decent score around these parts.


Been holding fairly steady at $3.37 at the really cheapo places.

Dinsdale wrote:

Cuda wrote:unless the real stuff goes over $3.33/gal.

$3.33 would be a decent score around these parts.


Been holding fairly steady at $3.37 at the really cheapo places.

Its around $3.85 in these parts.




Still waaaay too fucking low.

Cuda wrote:Update on the e-85 thingie.

A rough calculation shows that I'm averaging almost 13 mpg on the fake gas whereas I was averaging about 17 with the real thingie- imo.

At $2.46/gal for e-85, that equals .19¢ per mile- or no savings whatsuchever unless the real stuff goes over $3.33/gal.

In other words, the fake gas just isn't cost æffective. In still other words, e-85 is a fucking SCAM!, btw

I read where regular gasoline yields about 50% more btu's than E-85, so that makes sense. They can have it.

Gas here just recently "dropped" a whole .02 down to $3.27.

88 wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:We all know that the use of petroleum for fuel is obviously wrong and primitive.

If it isn't for fuel, what is the right and modern use of petroleum?

Chemistry, mostly. The astonishing qualities of the petroleum molecule are indispensable for all manner of pharmaceuticals and medicines. And the non-fuel list of essential petroleum products is very long. Plastics, manufacturing, etc. In short, our absurdly short-sighted profit-gorging consumption of petroleum for automobiles is going to bite us in the ass even quicker than the disastrous effects of car-induced global warming.

The ethanol route is a tremendous disaster as well. The idea of using arable land for fuel instead of food is simply insane, and the effects of raping the Brazilian rain forests, for example, in order to increase gasoline production is a nightmare of stupidity and greed.

Ever REALLY see the documentary film, "Who Killed The Electric Car"? Watch it and learn a little about the fuckstains who run the oil-energy paradigm. You'll think of several of the film's scenes as you pump up next time.

Honda has a fuel-cell vehicle that converts hydrogen & oxygen into water & electricity. Its called the FCX. GM has a handfull of Equinox SUVs tha they've converted to fuel-cells, and BMW supposedly has a fuel-cell vehicle that has a top speed of 187mph.

At a million bucks each for the FCX, and no place this side of NASA to fill 'er up, I think I'll stick to driving my Tahoe for quite a while

Cuda wrote:Honda has a fuel-cell vehicle that converts hydrogen & oxygen into water & electricity. Its called the FCX. GM has a handfull of Equinox SUVs tha they've converted to fuel-cells, and BMW supposedly has a fuel-cell vehicle that has a top speed of 187mph.

At a million bucks each for the FCX, and no place this side of NASA to fill 'er up, I think I'll stick to driving my Tahoe for quite a while

RACK


and RACK your avatar and sig as well.


I'd like to think im doing my part by cancelling out more than a few "green" faggots on the road by owning a Mach and a Cobra. I might even be mixing in an old school musclecar to restore soon that will surely be a gross polluter. RACK it.

Cuda wrote:I think I'll stick to driving my Tahoe for quite a while

my condolences....

that's a gas sucking pig......

Felix wrote:
that's a gas sucking pig......

Cat, i'd venture to say that your particular edition of Saleen sucks up more gas than Cood's Tahoe.

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Ever REALLY see the documentary film, "Who Killed The Electric Car"?

No need for your faggoty agitprop. It is a simple question with a straightforward answer: The consumer.

Next....

Well, you obviously haven't seen the film.

Raydah James wrote:

Felix wrote:
that's a gas sucking pig......

Cat, i'd venture to say that your particular edition of Saleen sucks up more gas than Cood's Tahoe.

I'm guessing you'd be right.....

but only if I romp on it......

Felix wrote:

Raydah James wrote:

Felix wrote:
that's a gas sucking pig......

Cat, i'd venture to say that your particular edition of Saleen sucks up more gas than Cood's Tahoe.

I'm guessing you'd be right.....

but only if I romp on it......

I'll bet Felix has more FUN burning that gas than Coods does in that Tahoe....:wink:

BTW, nice Holden Monaro reference there Lames....even funnier that my "Monaro" would hand your Mach it's ASS.

RevLimiter wrote:
BTW, nice Holden Monaro reference there Lames

Hey, you're the dumbfuck who bought that family wagon shitpile of australian blasphemy and let the terrorists win. Good job, you fat cunt.

....even funnier that my "Monaro" would hand your Mach it's ASS.

Probably. My blown Cobra would be a different story. The '04 Z06 en route to take the place of the Mach within the next few months is a very different story.

Raydah James wrote:

RevLimiter wrote:
BTW, nice Holden Monaro reference there Lames

Hey, you're the dumbfuck who bought that family wagon shitpile of australian blasphemy and let the terrorists win. Good job, you fat cunt.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA Slow down, Paul, or your wife'll blacken your other eye

Cuda wrote:

Raydah James wrote:

RevLimiter wrote:
BTW, nice Holden Monaro reference there Lames

Hey, you're the dumbfuck who bought that family wagon shitpile of australian blasphemy and let the terrorists win. Good job, you fat cunt.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA Slow down, Paul, or your wife'll blacken your other eye

RACK the family truckster reset.

Cuda wrote:BWAHAHAHAHAHA Slow down, Paul, or your wife'll blacken your other eye

Doubtful, Coods....I bought her a new Trailblazer SS about 3 weeks ago. Hell hath no fury like a woman behind the wheel of a 400hp SUV.

Raydah James wrote:Hey, you're the dumbfuck who bought that family wagon shitpile of australian blasphemy and let the terrorists win. Good job, you fat cunt.

Whatever....just keep yer slow ass Mach out of the fast lane before a FAST car like mine runs yer ass over. :wink:

Probably. My blown Cobra would be a different story. The '04 Z06 en route to take the place of the Mach within the next few months is a very different story.

Don't be a pussy- get rid of the blown Cobra and piss on that '04 Z06....get a NEW 505hp Z06. My insurance agent got one about 3 months ago and it is ONE FAST MOTHERFUCKER. Simply the baddest factory stock car I've ever driven. Had it up to 170 and it had a LOT left. Seriously James, you oughta consider one.