is it better to file under Obama or the next president?

[Scream2Death]

is there any difference between Bush, Obama, and the next president?

we all know that Bush pass that new bk law in 2005

[NoMoreCards]

Laws change all the time, I don't think there is any way to even guess what the future will bring.

In some ways, that is probably a good thing.

[HHM]

we all know that Bush pass that new bk law in 2005

Let's be fair for a minute, Senator Biden, now Vice President, was the author of the BK law changes and the law passed congress with wide bipartisan support, so you can't really put this one on Bush.

[Never_Again]

Thank you, HMM... a little lesson in US government:

The president does not pass laws arbitrarily. The Congress passes laws with a majority vote, and then the president can sign something into law.

If you are close enough to bankruptcy to be considering it, it wouldn't be prudent to wait for over 3 years to file. I know, it seems like Obama has been in office for 3 years already, but he hasn't even made one year yet. And no, it doesn't feel like that because he has accomplished soooo much!

Don't wait for the government to make your life better. They can't, as a rule.

[Flamingo]

It took many yeas for the new BK law to pass and go into effect in 10/05. There were many delays. We filed in 4/02 and it was stalled at that time not passing until much later. Most attorneys at that time even were advising filers to file to avoid its passing. The same would probably hold for any possible new legislation and by the time that was all decided, passed, etc., you could be looking at five to 10 years or more if there ever will be any changes.

[leena]

The BK reform bill is frequently blamed on Republicans, but it is very true it had wide bipartisan support. Ironically, the primary effect of the bill was to make attorneys richer-it slowed BK filings for a few years but even by 2008, filings were back up to nearly pre "reform" levels.

Even more telling is that the majority of those filings were chapter 7's, just as before the new law. The whole purpose of the law was to shove more people into Chapter 13's, but the truth of the situation is that the majority of people who file do not have the means to fund a 13.

I think part of the issue was that our congressman and senators, mostly very affluent people, just do not understand the lives of "the rest of us". We are not hiding 40K we could use to pay our debts if only we really wanted to, and most of us are not filing BK repeatedly and plotting to do it all over again as soon as permitted.

There are holes in BK "reform" you could drive a train through. Goodies like the whole student loan issue, just for one. BK reform is seriously in need of some reform, but with one of the authors of the original bill as VP, that is pretty unlikely.

[OhioFiler]

Scream...if I were a liberal I would not file bankruptcy while Obama and the dems run Washington. I'd just wait for some Obama money like the folks in Detroit got.

[HHM]

Not to make this thread a commentary on the reform, but I think one of the biggest problems was making chapter 13's 60 month minimum. That is just too long, too many things change especially for those that are already financially precarious, a chapter 13 is to big a burden. If I could choose only 1 change, it would be to make chapter 13's back to 36 month minimum.

In the big picture, I don't think that the BK reform shifted that many people from 7 to 13, and I think the percent is actually quite small, less than 10. The same people that would be filing chap 7 old law are the same people filing chap 7 under the new law, and same goes for chapter 13.

[AngelinaCat]

The BK reform bill is frequently blamed on Republicans, but it is very true it had wide bipartisan support. Ironically, the primary effect of the bill was to make attorneys richer-it slowed BK filings for a few years but even by 2008, filings were back up to nearly pre "reform" levels.

Even more telling is that the majority of those filings were chapter 7's, just as before the new law. The whole purpose of the law was to shove more people into Chapter 13's, but the truth of the situation is that the majority of people who file do not have the means to fund a 13.

When we started thinking about BK in 2006, we were trying to file a 13 as we wanted to pay our creditors at least a little something, even if we couldn't make 100% payback. When we retained the attorney and started working on the process in 2007, we still were trying for the 13. It was the pre-filing credit counseling that told us we were borderline between a 13 and a 7, but that we were better suited to a 7.

Then I lost my FT job, and 'Hub lost his main computer consulting client. At that point we had no choice but the 7.

[frogger]

And who knows who or when the next president will be? Could be in 7 years, could be tomorrow.

It doesn't really matter who the president is. Until congress and the senate are reformed or changed, it's the same ole' thing every day.

[OhioFiler]

Not to make this thread a commentary on the reform, but I think one of the biggest problems was making chapter 13's 60 month minimum. That is just too long, too many things change especially for those that are already financially precarious, a chapter 13 is to big a burden. If I could choose only 1 change, it would be to make chapter 13's back to 36 month minimum.

In the big picture, I don't think that the BK reform shifted that many people from 7 to 13, and I think the percent is actually quite small, less than 10. The same people that would be filing chap 7 old law are the same people filing chap 7 under the new law, and same goes for chapter 13.

This is a prime example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Every time Congress tries to "fix" something they make it worse.

[momisery]

You can pass laws to require a license to drive, but it does not mean that it will stop people who really should not be out there won't be. If we pass laws we must then set up funds to enforce them, and no one wants to pay taxes. I hear people complain all the time about education but they vote down every tax increase. We need to get our government back so we can pass laws without attorney's pointing out all the grey areas and we would be much better off. A monopoly is a monoploy for heavensakes.. and pretending they are strong competitors when they are dragons will never work. Capitalism is good until they start eating each other.

We were on the edge, but the time frame that the 13 hangs over your head and the cost of going back to your attorney all the time made it unaffordable.

[OhioFiler]

You can pass laws to require a license to drive, but it does not mean that it will stop people who really should not be out there won't be. If we pass laws we must then set up funds to enforce them, and no one wants to pay taxes. I hear people complain all the time about education but they vote down every tax increase. We need to get our government back so we can pass laws without attorney's pointing out all the grey areas and we would be much better off. A monopoly is a monoploy for heavensakes.. and pretending they are strong competitors when they are dragons will never work. Capitalism is good until they start eating each other.

We were on the edge, but the time frame that the 13 hangs over your head and the cost of going back to your attorney all the time made it unaffordable.

Money doesn't solve the problems of most school districts. Some of the worst school systems in the country spend huge sums of money yet accomplish nothing. Look at Washington DC as a great example.

[percy]

Personally even though it will be an illusion propped up with printed fiat money out of thin air, I DO SEE AN ECONOMIC RECOVERY on the horizon which will likely be followed by some sort of global economic meltdown over the next decade, that being said I think RIGHT NOW is the BEST time to file frankly because everyone else is, they may tighten the ropes a little if things pick up but right now it seems to be a free for all and likely wont affect your life as much since so many are doing it.

Of course there are many reasons to wait and I cant offer advice without knowing the situation. As for me, I am doing it now and moving on with my life.

[forgotten]

Money doesn't solve the problems of most school districts. Some of the worst school systems in the country spend huge sums of money yet accomplish nothing. Look at Washington DC as a great example.

One of the local school around here recently built on a *second* olympic size swimming pool, a new state of the art gym with about every fancy gadet you can think of, added plasma televisions to the classrooms, and a bunch of other things, spent millions... Then just a year later wanted a tax hike so they could afford to hire new teachers.

They spend all the money on "fun stuff", then ask for more money for important stuff. They know they couldn't ask for a tax hike to install a new jumbo tron for the high school football team, so they spend all the money on that then say they need more tax money to improve the curriculum.

I have paid enough in school taxes to send 3 kids through private school... but I don't even have any kids!