I don't believe we've ultimately lost on the bankruptcy issue ...

[Pepperbelly]

and here is why.

The House has not yet passed the bill. Will Delay have them pass the exact version that the Senate passed or will he, as a dog returns to its own vomit, be compelled to juice it up to more draconian levels because that is what he always does.

If he juices it up even more, it will have to go to Conference and after that, the conference bills would have to be passed by both houses. I think that their hubris will give us one more bite at the apple and one more chance to pressure our Senators.

[acmejack]

1. I hope you're right, but...

Their corporate masters are pushing for rapid implementation, time is money don't ya know? When MBNA speaks, congress listens...

[Pepperbelly]

2. the question becomes ...

can Dealy avoid playing to the peanut gallery when the House works its will?

I don't think he can.

[Mass]

6. I would hope you to be right but

The House and the Senate negotiated the bill so that it passes without modification in the Senate, to avoid the need for a Conference.

All the amendments voted by the Republican leadership in the Senate were prealably cleared with the House . So I guess in practice, it is passed.

[flpoljunkie]

3. Senate amendments will be acceptable to the House. Unless there is

rioting in the streets by both parties, it will pass quickly and be signed into law. Frist made sure there were no amendments that would be unacceptable to the House.

I wish it were not so, but the Democratic enablers made this one-sided "bankruptcy protection" bill possible. The only thing protected in this bill are credit card companies' profits--expected to rise when they are able to make judges serve as collection agents and squeeze every last dime from the middle class.

The credit card companies have given over $40 million dollars to Congresscritters since 1990, and now there ship has come in with Dubya at the helm!

Shame on the Democrats who voted on cloture to enable this one-sided bill. It reeks of economic injustice!

[kohodog]

4. Anyone know who in Congress accepted the largest contributions from

banks and credit card companies?

just wondering....

[Bryn]

5. Shouldn't this be illegal to accept contributions from corporations?

For Federal Government to accept???

[blondeatlast]

7. You're joking, right?

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=N03

[Bryn]

9. Unbelievable!!

Thanks for the link. It just doesn't seem right to me for the federal government to accept constritutions from corporations/companies .. so I am truly amazed. I still have so much to learn.

[blondeatlast]

12. Well, the government doesn't; these are campaign contributions.

I am a civic employee, and we aren't even allowed to take coffee mugs as gifts (not a joke).

But they can contribute to a candidate with nary a restriction.

[blondeatlast]

8. We haven't yet; it would be great to see the House do what

the Senate hasn't got the nads to do.

Call. Write. Astroturf. Tell your friends.

It ain't over yet, and this would be an embarassment to Bug-Bomb Tom.

[Pepperbelly]

10. I don't think we can beat them in the House but ...

if Delay plays the way he usually does, he will pass something with a bat-shit crazy provision or two and count on getting more poor-people-fucking out of conference. If he does that, would that not open up the process in the Senate once again?

That's my thinking anyway.

[realFedUp]

11. They go into conference as mac and cheese and come out porkroasts

or as the transportation bill just showed,
little elves stick in tons of condiments
in the middle of the night so it's a very
expensive meal paid by us.

[Pepperbelly]

14. great metaphor ...

and i do not think that Tom Delay can resist it. It's just no in him to bypass an opportunity to enrich himself or some of the people who have been accused of bribing his sorry ass. That would mean a second bite at the apple.

[meow2u3]

13. Even if the bill is passed, it can be challenged in court

on the grounds that forcing bankrupt individuals to forgo future earnings and assets--not just current--amounts to debt servitude, a kind of involuntary servitude imposed on largely middle-class debtors. Thirteenth Amendment violation.