Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

It is not JUST that Biden voted to eliminate middle class bankruptcy protections. He voted against

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 01:20 PM
Original message
It is not JUST that Biden voted to eliminate middle class bankruptcy protections. He voted against
the amendments proposed by Democrats to make the bill less anti-consumer.

Biden voted AGAINST Durbin's amendment to preserve bankruptcy protections for service-members and veterans, and he was one of only six Democrats who voted against this pro-military and pro-consumer protection.

Biden refused to support Kennedy's amendment to preserve bankruptcy protections for those who were bankrupted by medical costs, and he was one of only six Democrats who refused to support this pro-consumer protection.

Biden voted AGAINST Feingold's amendment to preserve the elderly's protection against foreclosure on their homes, and he was one of only three Democrats who voted against this pro-consumer protection.

This just a sample; there are numerous other pro-middle class amendments which Biden refused to support.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. This is why I will NEVER support Biden
I keep thinking of all the lives Biden has ruined in his incessant whoring for the big banks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ginchinchili Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. You're being intellectually dishonest in how you express your disagreement.
"I keep thinking of all the lives Biden has ruined in his incessant whoring for the big banks!"

So, who are you whoring for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PDittie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. More importantly
has he/she ruined as many lives as Biden?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. I'm not whoring for Biden.
I want a real Democrat who stands up to Wall Street.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConfidentialStatus Donating Member (245 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. Who might that candidate be?
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConfidentialStatus Donating Member (245 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. This bears repeating
I posted these quotes in another Biden thread. If we go by shear numbers on who is the biggest whore, then we should state the numbers. I believe our early country men warned us. And like Lincoln said the wealth would be in the hands of a few. Who here is amongst one of the few?


"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."


--Thomas Jefferson


"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question it's methods or throw light upon it's crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong it's reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed."

--Abraham Lincoln
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
20. what a stupid response..
how about whoring for the working class? does that clear it up for you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. I think a lot of the Bidenites were not members here when that vote went down
I forget that sometimes.

I think that's where they don't get why a lot of people here really do not like him. I remember that day and the anger everyone felt toward him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ccpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
4. isn't he owned
by MBNA or something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
21. yarp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walk softly Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
5. ALIMONY CHECKS?
What do any of these have to do with ALIMONY. Will the survivors of the middle class care what the Senator's motive was in supporting BK bill? People will be voting with their pocketbooks come November 2008 and I for one would like a Democratic nominee that doesn't appear to be part of the problem. Has anyone seen or heard the Senator address his vote during the Presidential campaign?

Before you attack, remember I've committed to work hard for Joe Biden if he is our nominee, just think he needs to address this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
6. i really like Biden as a candidate
but i can't forgive him for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
7. Biden sucks as far as domestic policy goes.
I'd like him in a foreign policy position where he can do as little domestic damage as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
28. I tend to agree with that -- although he was a dope on Iraq in 02
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #7
63. He definitely has the knowledge base to be Sec State or Sec Def n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
72. as if the two aren't connected. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
9. Because he is "owned" by the banking industry or because he believes we should all be financially
responsible? Voting against protections for people bankrupted by medical bills is harsh in the extreme and the rest should have been tempered with a massive consumer/student education campaign (paid for by lenders) as well as strict advertising limits and rigid new disclosure laws for mortgage and credit card companies.

Sub-prime mortgages should NEVER have been legal and those companies that offered them need to be prosecuted down to the level of the officers who profited personally. It's Ken Lay all over again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Steely_Dan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Shouldn't He Be Rolling In Money
So, in following your logic, shouldn't Biden be rolling in contributions from the banking industry?

Just asking.

-P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walk softly Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Sorry Dan
You're little sound bites just don't make it any more. This is a real issue for many voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop Cornyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. Biden and Dodd are neck-and-neck for the highest percentage of funds from lobbyists
Here's a link for how much each candidate has received from lobbyists:

Hillary Clinton - $567,950
Christopher J. Dodd - $233,875
Bill Richardson - $134,950
Joseph R. Biden Jr. - $114,460
Barack Obama - $76,859
John Edwards - $18,900


You can compare that against how much the candidates have raised:

Biden - $8,215,739 ($1,886,340 cash on hand)
Clinton - $90,935,788 ($50,463,013 cash on hand)
Dodd - $13,598,152 ($3,874,874 cash on hand)
Edwards - $30,329,152 ($12,397,048 cash on hand)
Gravel - $379,795 ($17,527 cash on hand)
Kucinich - $2,130,200 ($327,094 cash on hand)
Obama - $80,256,427 ($36,087,191 cash on hand)
Richardson - $18,699,937 ($5,821,588 cash on hand)


While Clinton has the most lobbyist money, Dodd and then Biden have the highest percentage of money from lobbyists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop Cornyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #25
43. I started an independent thread on this issue to discuss the matter in a non-bankruptcy context
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Thanks for doing that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #9
91. it just hit me like a "duh"
There are two places where credit card companies are often based. Delaware and South Dakota, because those two states lack usury laws. Hence CCCs are either major contributors to him and/or major employers in his state and he serves their interests ahead of the rest of us.

But just because they support his senate candidacy does not mean they support him for President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PDittie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
10. Never got the Biden cheerleading squad
that suddenly appeared here. That BK bill totally screwed thousands of struggling people across America. Still screwing many thousands of others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
12. Hmm
A pity, I was just starting to get over disliking him. However I wonder who among these candidates was on the right side of this bill? Feingold isn't running. Sadly. So who did do the right thing here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stop Cornyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Hillary missed the vote (Bill's heart surgery) but denounced it, Edwards denounced it, Obama voted
against it, Kucinich denounced it, and Dodd voted against it. Don't know where Richardson or Gravel stand on it (but since Gravel has filed for bankruptcy in the past, I'm sure you can mark him down as opposed).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
23. Edwards voted for similar bills in 2000 & 2001, see my reply #22.
In 2005 Edwards said he vote vote against it if he were in the Senate and said his prior votes were a mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Those bills weren't even REMOTELY similar. If you care to learn about the key differences, they're
discussed HERE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Oh yes they were. Read this ---
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 03:40 PM by pirhana
* Edwards supported a bankruptcy bill that was vetoed by President Clinton. In 2000 John Edwards voted for the Bankruptcy Overhaul bill. While this bill included a slight increase of the minimum wage, its major design was to revise bankruptcy laws to make it easier for courts to force debtors to repay their debts, while before the law had allowed debtors to discharge their debt.


* Edwards voted for the same bill in 2001, again choosing financial interests over working families. In 2001 Edwards voted for a similar Bankruptcy Overhaul bill that again required Americans facing bankruptcy to undergo debt repayments instead of debt relief. Specifically, the bill required debtors able to pay $10,000 or 25% of their debts over five years to file under Chapter 13, which requires a reorganization of debts under a repayment plan, instead of seeking to discharge their debts under Chapter 7. Edwards voted with nearly the entire Republican caucus in supporting this bill, as well as voting to end debate on the measure.


* Edwards would not allow relief for people who were forced into bankruptcy from medical bills. Edwards also sided with the entire GOP caucus to vote against the Wellstone amendment to the 2001 bill.
This amendment would have provided an exemption for debtors who were forced to file for bankruptcy due to medical expenses, under the rationale that health expenses are often unpreventable and can be an especially debilitating cost to low and middle income families

Edwards rejected a means test amendment that would have protected debtors from sudden financial misfortune. On the same bill, Edwards again voted with the entire GOP caucus to reject an amendment that would have included a more consumer friendly means test than that included in the original bill. The amended means test would have used the average of a debtor's last two months of income to determine their ability to pay a certain threshold amount of debt, instead of the last six months of income.

* Edwards supported the final version of the Bankruptcy bill that "punishes the vulnerable." Months later, Edwards again voted for the similar version of the Bankruptcy bill that emerged from negotiations with the House of Representatives. He also voted to limit debate twice on the bill, stifling further amendments or arguments.


This was the foundation for the bankruptcy bill that was passed in 2005.
Don't get me wrong, I am PISSED at Biden for voting for this. But I am also PISSED at Edwards. Edit to add Hillary.
http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=102959
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walk softly Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. GREAT POST
Thanks for the update and the accompanying link. This is new info to me and I would like to hear from Edwards and Dodd folks who can shed light.

Also, thank you for bringing some sanity to the issue. We all can become caught up in personal preferences, but it's a good thing when someone stops and takes the time to educate other Dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #29
39. If you're genuinely curious, and not just trying to dilute the consequences of Biden's horrible vote
here is an article you may want to read. You cannot compare the earlier bills to the hell that was caused by the 2005 bill. It's not even in the same ball park. Hell, it's not even the same sport.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #26
56. I see one difference as noted in your journal about
protecting the first 100K in home equity but the bills are rather lengthy :)

Looking at the votes more Republicans supported the 2000 and 2001 bills even though they may have been better than the 2005 bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #56
60. The home equity was just the biggest difference. There was also a minimum wage hike, too. Most
importantly, the 2000 bill has a provision that people who were in debt due to fines incurred as a result of protesting abortion clinics were excluded from bankruptcy protection. That provision was generally considered a poison pill put in to force the (then Republican controlled) Senate to kill the bill.

A vote for the 2000 bill was a vote to call the Republican's bluff -- everyone who voted for it knew it wasn't going to be the law.

There is no question that Dodd in the Senate (and Kucinich -- OF COURSE! -- in the House) has the best record on this issue, but there is also no question that Biden has the worst record (BY FAR) on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #60
64. No argument from me on your final analysis, unfortunately there
are mistakes/errors in judgement to overlook with each candidate.

I'm sticking with Kucinich, even after his mention of Ron Paul.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodgd_yall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #26
74. Hear, hear
They were different bills. What Biden voted for was much worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. Biden didn't just vote for the worse bill, he voted for all bills and voted against amendment which
Edited on Thu Nov-29-07 02:03 PM by Tejanocrat
would have made those bills better.

The OP discusses a few of the worst amendments Biden voted against in the awful 2005 bill. Here's a discussion of the amendments to the earlier bill which other Democrats offered and supported but Biden sided with the Republicans to vote against: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #14
57. Hillary did vote for the Kennedy amendment
Regarding medical bills and bankruptcy.

And so did my lest favorite Democrat, Di Feinstein.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. Senate and House vote links
Dodd, Kucinich & Obama voted against this bill. Clinton missed the vote due to her husband's surgery.


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll108.xml


Edwards was not in the Senate at this time but voted for a similar bills back in 2000 and 2001 and also voted against amendments to those bills that would have hurt debtors. Edwards did say in 2005 he would vote against the bill if he were in the senate and that his prior votes were mistakes.


1999/2000 bill

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll115.xml

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h106-833


2001 bill...as far as I can tell there was no corresponding vote in the House in 2001

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s107-420

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...


http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0322-05.htm

"...When George W. Bush took office, a bankruptcy bill was the first major legislation passed by the new Congress. Bill Clinton had vetoed a milder version, but in the new circumstances many former opponents scrambled aboard. Only sixteen Democratic senators voted against the bill, led by Paul Wellstone (the measure would have become law long ago, if not for Wellstone's guerrilla resistance). The "yea" votes included a couple of new faces much celebrated as "people" politicians and presidential possibles--Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Two other potential candidates--Russ Feingold and John Kerry--voted against it..."


http://www.totalbankruptcy.com/bankruptcy_articles_john...

"...The Dodd camp specifically pointed out Edwards voting actions on the Bankruptcy Overhaul bill in 2000. According to the press release, that bill would have essentially made it easier for courts to make debtors repay their debts rather than allowing them to discharge them. While Dodd and 11 other Democrats rejected this bill, Edwards voted in favor of it. Dodd even noted in the press release how President Bill Clinton vetoed this bankruptcy bill because it was too tough on debtors.

Dodd further questioned Edwards as a poverty fighter by saying that his opponent voted in favor of a similar version of the Bankruptcy Reform bill in 2001. Specifically, that bill required debtors to pay $10,000 or 25% of their debts over time under a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan rather than letting them seek a discharge via Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Questioning his opponents political allegiances, Dodd noted how Edwards sided with Republicans in favoring the 2001 bankruptcy bill. Dodd said that Edwards even aligned with the Republican caucus in rejecting an amendment to the bill by Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. That amendment would have given an exemption to debtors who were forced into bankruptcy because of medical expenses. Naturally, Dodd was one of 34 Democrats to vote in favor of this amendment.

Edwards voting record on bankruptcy issues gets worse, according to the Dodd camp. Dodd detailed how Edwards once again lined up with the Republicans in rejecting an amendment that would have included a more consumer-friendly means test than in the original Bankruptcy Overhaul bill of 2001. That amendment would have initiated a Chapter 7 means test that would have averaged the debtors last two months of income and taken into account sudden job losses or disabilities. The original bill mandated a means test averaging the debtors last six months of income.

Dodd concluded the press release by saying that Edwards ultimately supported a bankruptcy bill that not only punished the financially vulnerable but also aligned with big banks and credit card companies..."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. The 2000 and 2001 Bills were widely supported by majorities of Democrats and were not even REMOTELY
similar to the outrageous Bill passed against a majority of Democrats as discussed HERE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. See my post #29, and see exactly what Edwards and Hillary voted for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #32
41. See my post #39
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #27
55. Not so, the 2000 & 2001 bills were mainly supported by Repubs
and some Democrats. If you look at the vote breakdown on the govtrack links I posted you will see the majority of support came from Republicans.


Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000

House vote, not even one Republican voted against the bill.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1999-115

Senate vote

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2000-5


Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001

Senate vote

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2001-36


Senator Wellstone in 2001, not sure why Edwards voted against this amendment???

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

"Wellstone Pushes To Protect Americans Hit by Huge Medical Bills From Unbalanced, Unfair Bankruptcy Reform Bill

http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/0307-13.htm

...The bankruptcy bill purports to target abuses of the bankruptcy code by wealthy scoff laws and deadbeats (who make up about 3% of all filers according to an independent study). Yet hundreds of thousands of Americans file for bankruptcy every year not to game the system but because they are overwhelmed by medical bills. Unfortunately, there are at least 15 provisions in S. 420 that make it harder to get a fresh start regardless of whether the debtor is a scofflaw and or a person who must file because they are made insolvent by their medical debt. These include, but are in addition to, the means test.

As an analysis in the Wall Street Journal last week put it: The bill is full of hassle-creating provisions, some reasonable, some prone to abuse by aggressive creditors trying to get paid at the expense of others. In a thicket of compromises, Congress risks losing sight of the goal: making sure that most debtors pay their bills while offering a fresh start to those who honestly cant.

The Wellstone amendment will preserve the fresh start for those debtors who honestly cant because they are drowning in medical debt..."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #55
58. Only 13 Democrats voted against the 2000 Senate bill; only 13 Democrats voted against the 2001 bill
Also, on the 2001 bill:

. Biden voted against Wellstone's pro-consumer amendment (Edwards, Clinton, and Dodd all supported the Wellstone amendment)

. Biden voted to table Kennedy's pro-consumer amendment (Edwards, Clinton, and Dodd all supported the Kennedy amendment)

. Biden voted to table Kerry's pro-consumer amendment (Edwards, Clinton, and Dodd all supported the Kerry amendment)

. Biden voted to table Leahy's pro-consumer amendment (Edwards, Clinton, and Dodd all supported the Leahy amendment)

. Biden voted to table Feinstein's pro-consumer amendment (Edwards, Clinton, and Dodd all supported the Feinstein amendment)

. Biden voted to table Wyden's pro-consumer amendment (Edwards, Clinton, and Dodd all supported the Wyden amendment)

. Biden voted to table Durbin's pro-consumer amendment (Edwards, Clinton, and Dodd all supported the Durbin amendment)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. And 219 Republicans & 94 Dems voted for the 2000 bill :)
Majority support came from the Republicans IMO.

And only 1 Senator voted against the Patriot Act :(


All the amendments are listed here for the 2001 bill, just so you know I'm not giving Biden a pass on this bill.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/v...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #59
62. In the final vote in the Senate, only 13 Democrats voted against it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #62
66. True but a majority is still a majority :) the house vote is more
divided.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #66
71. Almost three times as many Democrats supported the bill as opposed it. How's than not a majority of
Democrats?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #71
78. Repub vote - 261 Yes 2 No ---Dem vote - 103 Yes 114 No
This is the collective total (Senate and House) on the 2000 bill.

And this was my original statement...

"Not so, the 2000 & 2001 bills were mainly supported by Repubs and some Democrats. If you look at the vote breakdown on the govtrack links I posted you will see the majority of support came from Republicans."

If you want to speak of just the votes by Democrats and only in the Senate then I agree with your statement, although that is not what I was speaking about when I said the majority of support came from the Republicans. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. You can't doubt that I have been talking about the Senate vote can you? Was I unclear in any way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. It only became clear when you mentioned the 13 votes. Hope
I was clear that I was speaking of both, here is the subject line of my first post and in my second post I gave links to both House and Senate votes.

"Senate and House vote links"

So I guess we can also say that the IWR was widely supported by a majority of Democrats, although smaller majority. :evilgrin:




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. Frankly, I thought you were trying to make the point that the bill was passed by a majority of
Republicans which, since the Senate was controlled by the Republicans in 2000 and 2001, is true of EVERYTHING that passed those sessions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #58
67. He didn't vote for them, because they were redundant...
Edited on Thu Nov-29-07 01:07 AM by 1corona4u
and there were already protections in place to address them. If anyone has a problem with why he voted a specific way, I would suggest you go to his site and read why he did so. You'll be able to either accept, or decline the reason, but this SPIN of the facts really needs to stop. You are spreading half truths, in an effort to garner support for your own selfish reasons. The factual statistics prove that this bill has not, in any way, hindered anyone's ability to file a BK. Period.
http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/statements.cfm

Here are the most current statistics;

"Bankruptcies rising: Filings for personal bankruptcy increased by 17.3 percent in August, compared to the prior month, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute. As reported by Subprime Auto Finance News, 74,607 consumers filed for bankruptcy protection in August, versus 63,600 inJuly. Compared to August 2006, the latest figure was up by 31.2 percent. "Families facing heavy household debts are increasingly turning to bankruptcy as a short-term fix," said Samuel Gerdani, executive director of th eAmerican Bankruptcy Institute."

So, to say that this bill hurt anyone's chances of filing a BK, is just ludicrous. The factual statistics prove otherwise.


I'm going to address the truth of the matter one last time, and if you would rather not believe it, fine.

MAJOR PROVISIONS--from the bill
In addition to establishing means-testing for determining eligibility for chapter 7 bankruptcy relief, S. 256 would:

Require the Executive Office for the U.S. Trustees to establish a test program to educate debtors on financial management;


Authorize 28 new temporary judgeships and extend four existing judgeships;


Permit courts to waive chapter 7 filing fees and other fees for debtors who could not pay such fees in installments;


Require that at least one of every 250 bankruptcy cases under chapter 13 or chapter 7 be audited by an independent certified public accountant;


Require the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) to receive and maintain tax returns for certain chapter 7 and chapter 13 debtors;


Require the AOUSC and the U.S. Trustees to collect and publish certain statistics on bankruptcy cases; and


Increase chapter 7 and chapter 11 bankruptcy filing fees, decrease chapter 13 filing fees, and change the budgetary treatment of such fees over a specified period of time.
Other provisions would make various changes affecting the bankruptcy provisions for municipalities and the treatment of tax liabilities in bankruptcy cases.


Anyone, anyone, can file for a BK. The reason for the BK is non specific or limiting. Meaning, if you had to file a BK because you had medical bills you could not afford, you can. If you have to file because you lost your job, you can. If you have to file because you become disabled, you can. If you are elderly and have to file a BK you can.

Means test; if you have more than 100 DMI, then you can not file a chapter 7. You have to file a chapter 13. But there are exceptions, for special circumstances, to the chapter 7's, such as the elderly, and military personel.

Obviously, some of you are making this out to be worse than it is. You're buying into the woe-is-me extreme left wing propaganda. And, clearly, again, this bill has not done what it set out to do.

I can't help but think that some of the people here are deadbeat dads, who tried to file a BK to get out of paying their alimony and child support, and that is why they have such an issue with it. Under the new bill, the wife and kids come first. The old way, was the creditors got the money first, the X and the kids had to wait.(which, by the way, is why Joe voted for it)

It's utterly ridiculous to continue complaining about this bill, which happened 2.5 years ago. Don't like it? Write to your senator or stop complaining. Don't like credit card rates? Stop using them, or get a better deal if your credit supports it. OR, write your senator and complain. That's the only way it will ever change.

This was NOT Joe Biden's bill, no matter how many times you say it. It doesn't make it true. It was in the works for TEN years.

And, I think you are completely mistaken to try to play connect the dots and suggest that Joe did this because of the credit card companies. There's just no evidence of that. At all.


I am so over this myopic issue. People need to stop expecting the government to bail them out, and the rest of us, who have to pay for all of the BK's, to the tune of $400.00 per person, per year, in increased cost.



I'm not going to reply, so don't bother to address me. I just want people who come here to get both sides of this story, not just the one from the woe-is-me crowd.

I hope to GOD we are lucky enough to have someone as decent as JOE for a president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #67
70. You say "I am so over this myopic issue." For me, this is the issue that knocked Biden off my list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
15. I like him, but I could NEVER vote for him in light of that "reform".
He's a good guy, but he's a little part of what's wrong in a big way with Washington.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
17. That really bothered me about Biden at the time it happened.
It sure appeared that he was owned - lock, stock and barrel - by the credit card companies, who have a huge presence in his home state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Froward69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
24. So in short this post espouses stiffing your kids,
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 03:19 PM by Froward69
stiffing small business. and hiding your assets from bankruptcy court.
thus continuing to live a lifestyle of disregard to debts owed.

Running up and not paying debt is a very republican thing to do.

Glad you are all on that bandwagon.
Then why is Biden not rolling in CC money?
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F03

He did make sure that you HAVE to pay your CHILD SUPPORT FIRST.
Shows your moral character as to how bad you want to stiff your kids.
http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=234426&...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. Ummmm....Not quite.
Sure there are a lot of jerks who abused bankruptcy laws.

But, as with anything else, should the many people who legitimately had to turn to debt forgiveness by necessity be tarred with the same brush?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Froward69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. ok my plight...
$250,000 for my fathers forced hospice care and medical bills. thats after the insurance company cheated him out of 40 years of insurance payments on a life insurance policy. convincing an 80 yo man he would die in an accident. oh and while were at it how about changing that long term care insurance to an accidental policy too? done. 10 years of payments there.GONE! He died of prostate cancer. two years of ebbing away in a Hospice bed. a natural death/

$250,000 just to keep my house. Dad co signed and Thus Joint tenant. It would be one thing if I actually got to spend that money on myself (medical bills, boat, college for my kid. etc) but no, I am behind the 8 ball from what the insurance comp did to us. and the forced Hospice part? he did not want to die in a hospice. (as he had seen that with friends) when he realized what happened, how they took advantage of him. he tried to kill himself to spare me from the Debt. The county he was in forced hospice care in the county facility. ( a reppuke bastion.) I could not take him home as I was "not upset at his motives nor his attempt" it was then assumed I "Would facilitate his death"!

The house was in Joint tenancy between he and I, Thus, part of his estate to plunder.

Bankruptcy is the last resort. I would qualify (under the new rules)if I chose to do it. I then would have to sell my home. this I will not do.

Additionally the bankruptcy bill had been in the works for decades. and is far less stringent now than it was in its conception. Saying it is specifically targeting people simply "down on their luck" is far too broad to be a reasonable argument. When I was in business school I was trained as to how to hide assets and file for bankruptcy to bolster profit and avoid paying debt. under the new rules it is more difficult but not less effective in curbing these endevours. one simply has to be more creative.

oh and where do I work? I am self employed A.K.A. UNEMPLOYED.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #35
49. I'm not sure I understand your point -- My narowly avoided plight
My motehr died last month. She had not recovered from an operation and had a couple of strokes. Had she survived she would have had to be placed in a nursing home, and may have vegetated there for years, while my brothers and I would have been strapped with the cost as her medicare and supplemental insurance had already run out.

She passed away before that happened, so we didn't have to face that. But I honestly can't say what we would have done oteh4wise, as none of us has any discretionary income.

Would we have filed for bankruptcy at some point? I can't say. I don't believe in such things if it is avoidable. But it may well have been unavoidable as the only option.

I don't believe people should be forced into such positions. But if they are I don't believe the escapoe hatch should be taken away or narrowed.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. I'm sorry for your loss. If it matters to you, Sen. Corzine offered an amendment to address your
situation; his amendment would have preserved existing bankruptcy protections for individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill or disabled family members.

Biden was one of seven Democrats who didn't support Corzine's amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philly_bob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
31. Right. But I give Biden a pass on that. Banking is Delaware's industry.
The bankruptcy bill was an awful bill, and each of Biden's votes against the good amendments was awful. His votes were indefensible.

It's like geography forces Biden to hold his nose and eat shit from the credit card companies. I judge him by how he handles other issues.

I do worry, though, that if he were president or vice president, would he still be beholden to credit card companies? Any Delaware-level politician votes with credit card companies. But would moving to a national level free him from those bonds?

AND would he support campaign finance reform, to end this type of pay-the-piper corruption?

I think enough of the guy that I'd say Yes to both.

But you're right, judging from the bankruptcy bill votes alone, he is a pathetic tool of the banking interests and opposed to the interests of the majority of Americans.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. As Molly Ivins once said
"You gotta dance with those that brung ya"

This is no different.

Biden winning the white house would be disatrous.

ANd it's not just this issue either.

Abortion as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Froward69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. ok
"Biden winning the white house would be disatrous."
First of all its "disastrous"
second Biden in the white house would not just be an improvement over the current idiot, but far better that any of the "top Tier" Egos.

insofar as abortion??? in your opinion, Why? please back it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spirit of 34 Donating Member (119 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Oh, boy, picking at typos
I can tell what level this debate's gonna be at already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. It ends here
Biden Discusses Opposition To Supreme Court Opinion In Federal Abortion Ban Case


Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, in an interview on Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" said that he supports a federal law (S 3) banning so-called "partial-birth" abortion but added that the majority opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision last month to uphold the law is an "intellectually dishonest rationale for an honest justification for upholding the ban." Biden voted for the law in 2003. In the interview, Biden said the majority opinion is "paternalistic" because it says "the court could consider the impact on the mother and keeping her from making a mistake." He added, "This is all code for saying, 'Here we come to undo Roe.'"

Biden, who is Catholic, also said he opposes public funding for abortion. Abortion rights are "the biggest dilemma for me in terms of comporting my ... religious and cultural views with my political responsibility," Biden said. When asked if he believes that life begins at conception, Biden said, "I am prepared to accept my church's view" (Russert, "Meet the Press," NBC, 4/29). Video of Biden's comments are available online. A transcript of the complete segment also is available online.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. Ruh roh. Abortion ban. Bankruptcy law. Clarence Thomas. No way.
Biden is a big mouthed loser.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #42
54. "Biden is a big mouthed loser"
He really is- for years, he's made an ass of himself nearly every weekend on the Sunday shows.

Between he and Lieberman, it's a wonder the party's approval ratings aren't in single figures....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KingOfLostSouls Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #36
45. why simple
because until he decided to run for president, he was against abortion...

oh whoops, wrong person :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #36
73. You're in a glass house there; mind the stones. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #73
77. true enough!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Think82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #31
47. Biden proposed te first public financing bill in 1972 or 4. He has talked about it in the debates
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #31
48. I can't give a pass because "Banking is Delaware's industry." He asks us to judge his experience.
Besides he says he's a leader. Voting the way an in-state corporation and financial supporter demands is not leadership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philly_bob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #48
65. How do other Senators vote when it comes to home-state industries?
I'm admitting Biden's bankruptcy act voting was reprehensible. May he hang his head in shame.

But we'd have to look at how other elective-office-holding Presidential candidates voted on matters of interest to their states.

Let's see:

Clinton, New York:
Kucinich, Ohio:
Dodd, Connecticut:
Edwards, North Carolina (former):
Obama, Illinois:

How did they vote on home-state economic issues?

In other words, has Clinton voted against Wall Street? Did Edwards vote against furniture industry when he was in Senate? Did Dodd vote against nuclear submarine bases?

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about politics to answer my own question...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #65
84. Kucinich has never voted to hang the little for the expense of the big guy
It doesn't matter what your home state industry is. Favoring big business at the expense of the little guy as if it benefits the little guy is trickel down economics.

That's just Robber Baron BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #84
85.  but it's okay that he voted against children's healthcare?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. Are you criticizing a vote by Dennis Kucinich? Which vote are you talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #87
88. Dennis voted against SCHIP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #88
90. He had good reason to
The bill he voted down restricted coverage to immigrant children. He voted for HR 676 which included all children. I applaud him for this.

Denying health care to any child is a sick and disgusting thing to do.





Washington, Sep 25 - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), issued the following statement after voting against the State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) conference report today:

I cannot support legislation which extends health coverage to some children while openly denying it to other children, Kucinich said. This legislation is woefully inadequate: and I will not support it.

Legal immigrant children deserve the same quality health care as other children receive. It is Congress responsibility to address the main difficulties that prevent legal immigrant children from gaining access to health care. Today, we did exactly the opposite.

HR 676 guarantees full health care coverage for all children. When considering a universal health care proposal, HR 676, the Medicare for All bill, is the only health care plan that addresses three important issues: quality, accessibility, and cost. HR 676 stands alone in an increasingly crowded field of efforts to provide health care coverage to all, Kucinich said.

Kucinich voted for the original House-passed version of the bill because it contained language to grant health coverage for legal immigrant children. However, in todays bill, this language was omitted.

http://kucinich.house.gov/news/DocumentSingle.aspx?Docu...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #88
93. It passed the House without his vote and he voted against the bill to protest that it didn't go far
enough to benefit uninsured children.

You would beat up Kucinich for THAT?

If you are going to beat up Dennis, you're going to have to do better than criticize him for making a statement that our government doesn't go far enough to protect our children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bethany Rockafella Donating Member (916 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
37. Has any of his constituents ever questioned him on that?
What was his reasonsing for voting that way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
46. This disqualifies him from being dogcatcher, IMO
It was that disgraceful.

And don't forget our so called "leader" Harry Reid- who never saw an issue he wouldn't gladly sell us out on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnnydrama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #46
50. SO.....
Basically nobody is voting for anybody, because all I read here is because X candidate voted for or against X bill, I can never vote for him/her.

Whether it's bankruptcy, or the AUMF, or any number of bills.

We can't vote for Obama because he had that anti gay singer, we can't vote for Kucinich because he's flirting with Ron Paul, we can't vote for Richardson because he flubbed a line at the GLBT town meeting. I can't even remember why we can't vote for Dodd...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. This was the WORST piece of economic legislation
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 09:23 PM by depakid
that I've every seen- and that's saying a LOT. There was absolutely NO justification for it- and it's even managing to cause the financial industry problems. Certain things are dealbtreakers- and they should be.

Want to know why so many people just don't vote? They see crap like this and figure- it doesn't really matter. And in some respects, they're right. A choice evils isn't a vert appealing argument.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inthebrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #53
80. BINGO!!!!!!!
You just nailed it.

And this piece of legislation is 100% anti labor, anti poor and anti middle class as it gets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodgd_yall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #50
75. Uh...
because his hair is white and he talks fast?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
52. I've followed Joe Biden for decades. I love him.
When you serve that long you disappoint some folks some of the time, but Biden pleases me most of the time, and he impresses me all of the time.

He would make an absolutely excellent president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
faithfulcitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #52
61. Well said! And I wholeheartedly agree. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Reno.Muse Donating Member (307 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
68. backstabbing Harry Reid did the same thing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
69. This is VERY disturbing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
81. It's Thursday, and I still respect and admire Joe Biden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NC_Nurse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
86. Wow. That's depressing.
I am surprised that he voted against any protections, especially for those who are bankrupted by medical costs. Sheesh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
89. Biden, it goes to show you, they're all out for themselves and always will be, except Obama!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #89
92. How is Kucinich "out for himself"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jul 28th 2014, 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC