Republicans and Democrats

What I have said on the subject is that the exact figures are not available. My claim was not to know the figures, but rather I provided a rock solid rationale for why not every bankruptcy that includes medical bills was caused by the medical bills. To claim that not every bankruptcy including medical bills was caused by medical bills does not require that I provide an exact number. It only requires that I provide a common situation that would ameliorate that claim, and I have dont just that.The people using this topic to push UC use the higher numbers in order to push their agenda. They know full well that people with serious health problems often cannot work and they fall behind on all of their bills. They are relying on the notion that readers do not make that connection. Very few do, so the tactic works like a charm.

It was incoporated, but as I said, we had to sign a personal note which personally guarantees that credit from suppliers, so being an LLC does not protect from that liability in that situation, to those specific creditors that you personally guaranteed. Most small businesses when starting out have no other alternative than to personally guarantee their credit line. You could avoid that if the business had assets with which to guarantee that credit. We did not have that when starting out. Very few do.

I assure you that personal bankruptcy was not filed for nothing.

 

My opinion here in the UK is that the safety gods are taking over government and every year they build a new level to their kingdom. Our local government is terrified of being accused of neglect so every project costs twice what it needs to.
We divided one of our buildings in half and built a concrete firewall between the two halves. The local fire officer visited and suggested we put up a $36,000 temporary fire curtain for the two weeks the wall was being built. In case a fork truck etc caught fire and spread into the occupied half of the building. I asked if he would do that on a council project? Yes he said, certainly.
I pointed out that even if such a ridiculous measure were needed it would be cheaper to pay someone to stand on a chair and watch for the two weeks. That's why government projects always cost 6 times private ones.
See, I'm a rightie

 

What you have done is attempted to cast doubt on the figures without evidence.

 

Then what you say makes no sense. If you can run up debts fail to pay them and walk away virtually Scot free, then everyone would be doing it.
And yes I'm aware of personal guarantees, but it depends on what you offered guarantees for.

 

HaHa. Be careful, it is contagious!

 

Are you saying that what I have mentioned does not happen and happen a lot?

That is the sum total of my position.

You brought up the claim, not me. If you wanted to provide a link for that claim, I will be happy to go in there and point out that it does not reveal the information that you.most think it reveals. It instead reveals exactly what I said that it does, which is a generality that very clearly ignores a lot of the equation.

 

Are you accusing me of being dishonest? In light of the entire conversation, I want to believe that you are not.

I am telling you, it was not a big deal. I was sort of surprised at that reality, but that is the 100% truth. A brief hit to the credit rating was it. We did not lose one posession. Literally nothing. People have this false belief that bankruptcy is something that is thrust upon someone where they have all of their possessions taken and they walk away wearing a barrel held up by suspenders.

The reality is that bankruptcy is a PRIVILEGE afforded to people who want to avail themselves of the ability to legally discharge their debts. People are not forced into bankruptcy. They choose it. A creditor does not want you to go bankrupt. They would not force it upon people even if they could, because ultimately that is the last thing they want. A person in debt makes that choice to get away from their legal obligation. The creditor would instead take pennies on the dollar to get you to not avail yourself of that opportunity. It is thrust upon no one, at least not on anyone with limited assets. If you were to possess large assets that exceed protected amounts a creditor could sue you into Chapter 13 bankruptcy which allocates those excess assets toward a payment plan. That is something different

We are talking about Chapter 7 which is a fulll discharge. For people without large assets that exceed protected limits, especially such as those without health insurance, a chapter 7 discharges all debt and has very limited negatives. It does put a ding on ones credit rating and remains on your record for 7 years, but beyond that, the impact is minimal. Most people do not realize this. I would not have known if I had not experienced it. I cannot speak to this process in the UK. I can however speak authoritatively to this process in the US. The limits vary slightly by state due to varying cost of living, but not by all that much.

 

At the risk of repeating myself endlessly. I asked for evidence. If it happens a lot and is being miscounted you would need to show evidence of such.
I did not raise the claim that the figures are exaggerated, you did. The figures regarding health costs and bankruptcy are widely available.

 

It does not matter what I believe. America is a Republic and has been since the beginning. It is the Constitution that makes America a Republic. Democrats want to make America a true democracy meaning the popular vote otherwise known as mob rule.

 

You asked for evidence of something that I have not claimed. Neither of us can find the exact number that you are seeking and which I have not claimed, which is why I have not claimed it. I in fact said in my first post on the subject that you or I cannot find that number broken out anywhere. There is not enough information in a bankruptcy filing to even delineate the primary reason which is why I know the information is not available to you or I.

My position is that they base their headline or the takeaway off a faulty premise ( or at least faulty implication) which is that anyone that files for bankruptcy and discharges any medical debt in that filing did so because medical debt is the reason they are filing for bankruptcy.

I implore you to provide a link to your claim. I will be happy to dig in and look at the methodology and point out how it comports with what I have said on how they are basing that claim.

 

What you describe does not fit the facts.
If bankruptcy has so little effect everyone would do it all the time.

 

I already provided an answer to your question in my first reply. Moral issues especially abortion should be decided by the people and not detached government bureaucracy.

 

So you are accusing me of lying? Even if you are not, don't you think it is a tad presumptuous as a Brit telling me how the US bankruptcy system works? Especially when I am a US citizen that has gone through this process.

7 years of bad credit is not exactly nothing. The humiliation of standing up in court and declaring bankruptcy isnt nothing. The sickening and humiliating feeling that you have when applying for credit and knowing that a bankruptcy filing is going to pop up is not nothing, even if it does NOT result in being denied. Answering yes to the bankruptcy question on an employment application is not nothing. I wouldn't suggest someone do this lightly. But if a person for example has accrued 200k in medical debt, I would tell them to run, not walk to their county offices in order to get this process started. It is literally a get out of jail free card. For someone that got caught sneaking by without health insurance when they arent poor, that ended up with a health crisis, they should consider themselves damn lucky that they can discharge this debt relatively easily. For that person, bankruptcy is a privilege, not a punishment. There are debt to income ratios that must be met before someone qualifies for this privilege so no, not EVERYONE could do this all the time as you allege.

Im not sure if you have this in the UK. but we have credit debt reduction services here. If someone has lets say 10k in credit card debt and has limited income, the debt reduction service can call the credit card companies and negotiate paying that off for amounts that are often times 25% or even less of the origianl debt, not to mention that the company takes a cut for themselves which means the credit card company took an even bigger hit. The credit card company agrees to this because they know damned well the debt to income ratio for that person and they know that person can in fact have them discharged relatively easily. They do not setlle for such a low percentage because they are nice. It is a business decision plain and simple.

If you want to believe what I said is a lie, or that I am incorrect in describing to you what happened when I went through it, I am not sure what else to say. I did mention that our finances were actually fine and current when we filed, it was instead a proactive thing for us. This means that we did not discharge our credit card debt ( which was not much) and hence we kept our credit cards etc. It means that we were current on our house payment. It means that we were current on both our car payments etc. We did not discharge any of these debts. Maybe the fact that our finances were fine made it a bit easier than if we were living hand to mouth such as someone that is unable to work because of their medical problem.

 

Semantics, there's virtually no difference.

 

I too don't understand the popularity of Trump, but the main difference between Republican and Democrats is that Republicans support rich people and are proud of it, Democrats support rich people too, but are ashamed of it.

 

Individualism versus Collectivism.

 

Read my post and answer what is the difference.

 

Democracy or republic?
Is democracy the most appropriate name for a large-scale representative system such as that of the early United States? At the end of the 18th century, the history of the terms whose literal meaning is “rule by the people”—democracy and republic—left the answer unclear. Both terms had been applied to the assembly-based systems of Greece and Rome, though neither system assigned legislative powers to representatives elected by members of the dēmos.

 

My aren't you demanding. I really don't think a Brit who has only known a form of collectivism would understand individualism as provided by our Constitution. America's Founding Fathers chose a Republic over a Democracy because they feared mob rule. America is losing touch with our history and the reason for the American Revolution.

 

Fine, this Brit will leave you alone.

 

Harvard study: Media has been largely negative on Trump

Chicago Tribune
https://www.chicagotribune.com › 2017/05/19 › harva...


May 19, 2017 — Whenever I mention the news media leans ridiculously far to the left, that it has lost half the country with its attitude and that the tone ...

Missing: wouldn't ‎ report ‎ reporting.


Donald Trump was right. He got incredibly negative press ...

Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com › the-fix › 2016/12/07

Media ups the ante on negative coverage of Trump

Boston Herald
https://www.bostonherald.com › 2020/06/15 › media-...


Jun 15, 2020 — Liberals are beginning to swagger around as if the 2020 election is already over. Eugene Robinson at The Washington Post exclaimed that ...

 

Your right. If you want more complete news, you have to listen to both sides. Much of the time one side won't touch on what the other side is reporting.

 

I have been saying this for a couple of years now. Most everything the Democrats do is for getting votes. When Obama was in office and bringing in all those Muslims, one Blue state was handing out gift baskets to them with Democratic voter registrations in them. Why do you think Biden wants to pay off/down student loans of 35 million students? Why do Democrats want to give the illegals the right to vote? Why do you think they flew the gay flag over all our Embassies? Why Biden puts so many Blacks and transgenders in high offices? Why they pushed mail in ballots? Why they want to make Washington DC and Puerto Rico new states? Especially when Puerto Rico turned down statehood three times already. Why do you think they want to have convicts vote? It's not hard to see that most everything the Democrats do is for winning over millions of groups of people. Why do you think they pushed ballot harvesting? The easiest way to cheat. Why do you think Biden showed up at the auto unions and wished them well in their negotiations? They play up to every group they can. You have to be living in another world not to see what they are doing.

 

Its so sad that 80 years after a war that killed 53 million people because a guy convinced the public it was all the Jews fault, we see people wanting to blame the Muslims for their current woes.
Or transgender, or blacks. Anyone! Just not us! Not our fault!
Humans never learn, we just so need to go extinct.

 

Awesome- a legitimate question. It's not an easy one to answer without detail, but we will try. Just my opinon, of course.

I believe we have differences in several areas. Perhaps the largest is in the perception of what government should do. I'm Independent, but I am also a strong conservative. I'm old, have run my own businesses for over 50 years, presently CEO of two small corporations. Telling you that for background.

I see good leadership as being somewhat like the navigator of a ship. The job is not to decide where the passengers sould go, that is their decision. The job is to guide them safely to their destination.
In doing so, keep things sound and healthy along the way. Help the people thrive. Not do for them, but help clear the way for them to do for themselves. That is what I know as the conservative point of view, which is usually close to the republican view. I believe that the strength of the individual is very important to the nation as well as the person, so I want to see values that help us build strong independent people- because those are the ones who will build strong, independent nations and keep our future strong. They are also much less likely to tolerate government misconduct, because they are less dependent on government. Keeps power more in line.

The democratic view sees the government more like the provider, the source that does for the people directly, so they do not have to do for themselves. They promote welfare, more controls over people, sometimes legislation to impose their views on others when the issues are personal. They are not alone in that, but they do it on a much wider scale than the republicans. They seem to endorse a lot of ideas that sound good but are detrimental to the future. Of course the future is always coming fast. I know today's decisions shape tomorrow, so I find that attitude very careless. In my view, the democratic position lacks maturity in judgment, vision and responsibility. It embraces a lot of nonsense. Being dependent on government gives the government power that people should have over themselves. It also makes them more controllable, and that motivates the more unscrupulous in politics to tell them what they want to hear- buy their votes with promises that can't be kept..

I think these same things exist in most nations that aren't dicatorships. If you value freedom, you have to take more responsibility for yourself- and, you have to allow others to do the same, and not try to control them. If you believe that what others do controls your life, then you are inclined to believe you must control them in order to make your own life and world what you want. Lots of demands, lots of people looking to transfer responsibility instead of accepting it. Short term answer, long term disaster.


I believe everybody is responsible for themselves, including everything they say, do, think or feel. That is where the power over your own life is at, and if you give that away- others own you, and you blame them for the result- but have no power to change it.