Rodeo, lets just do this.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by lendaddy
To execute or successfully complete. Which in this case would mean accepted by the court. Damn, do I need to chew your food too?

How does a bankruptcy get "accepted by the court?"

What exactly happens, and what obligations, if any, does the debtor continue to have to his creditors after this "acceptance by the court?"

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo
How does a bankruptcy get "accepted by the court?"

What exactly happens, and what obligations, if any, does the debtor continue to have to his creditors after this "acceptance by the court?"

Lots of things, hearings, potential objections, Statemets of worth etc...

Depends on the chapter filed, the type of debt(secured unsecured) the income level of the individual (in relation to their states median income) etc....

But none of that matters as in our example the subject has no assets and a fixed income below their obligations.

[Scooter]

So, if we get off this "what the definition of is, is" kick and get back to the original question of Bush's potential lie in the State of the Union speech giving in 2005, we will find the direct quote from Bush:

"One of America's most important institutions -- a symbol of the trust between generations -- is also in need of wise and effective reform. Social Security was a great moral success of the 20th century, and we must honor its great purposes in this new century. (Applause.) The system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy. And so we must join together to strengthen and save Social Security. (Applause.)

Today, more than 45 million Americans receive Social Security benefits, and millions more are nearing retirement -- and for them the system is sound and fiscally strong. I have a message for every American who is 55 or older: Do not let anyone mislead you; for you, the Social Security system will not change in any way. (Applause.) For younger workers, the Social Security system has serious problems that will grow worse with time. Social Security was created decades ago, for a very different era. In those days, people did not live as long. Benefits were much lower than they are today. And a half-century ago, about sixteen workers paid into the system for each person drawing benefits.

Our society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen. In today's world, people are living longer and, therefore, drawing benefits longer. And those benefits are scheduled to rise dramatically over the next few decades. And instead of sixteen workers paying in for every beneficiary, right now it's only about three workers. And over the next few decades that number will fall to just two workers per beneficiary. With each passing year, fewer workers are paying ever-higher benefits to an ever-larger number of retirees.

So here is the result: Thirteen years from now, in 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in. And every year afterward will bring a new shortfall, bigger than the year before. For example, in the year 2027, the government will somehow have to come up with an extra $200 billion to keep the system afloat -- and by 2033, the annual shortfall would be more than $300 billion. By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt. If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs.

I recognize that 2018 and 2042 may seem a long way off. But those dates are not so distant, as any parent will tell you. If you have a five-year-old, you're already concerned about how you'll pay for college tuition 13 years down the road. If you've got children in their 20s, as some of us do, the idea of Social Security collapsing before they retire does not seem like a small matter. And it should not be a small matter to the United States Congress. (Applause.) You and I share a responsibility. We must pass reforms that solve the financial problems of Social Security once and for all.

Fixing Social Security permanently will require an open, candid review of the options. Some have suggested limiting benefits for wealthy retirees. Former Congressman Tim Penny has raised the possibility of indexing benefits to prices rather than wages. During the 1990s, my predecessor, President Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former Senator John Breaux suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated. All these ideas are on the table."

and the origninal question was:

Originally posted by oldsam
I posted several examples. Nobody addressed them. This is the easiest one to verify.

In State Of The Union Speech Bush said: "By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt."...Is this Bush quote true or untrue?

The answer to Sam's question is irrelevent to the purpose of the thread. The purspose of the thread is to determine a LIE, not determine whether a statement is true or not. Here, taken in context, Bush was attempting to get the point across of the importance of Social Security reform. This point is not a lie, but rather, an important point to make given the rate of mortality and the rate of income coming into the Social Security fund.

I think this particular proposed lie is dead and we should move on to the next proposed lie, if there is one.


Now, my personal opinion, which only "fact" is that "I believe it", is the following:

The sad part of this thread, and the point I think was trying to be made by starting this thread is that there has been so many accusations that Bush has lied, but no supporting facts. I think this thread has shown that of all the accusations, there has been only one that can even be argued as a lie, which I believe at most is only an opinion that is well supported by data available to him at that time. The fact of the matter is, in my view, after reviewing this thread, is that Bush is not this pathological lier that he has been made out to be. At most, some of the information he has provided in his 5+ years as being president, may have not been entirely accurate. It is very easy to look back on a situation, after all the facts are known, and disprove a statement, but that still does not make it a lie.

[lendaddy]

Exactly Scooter. I think I said this before, but my buddy is in law school and he told me he did pretty good on a recent big test! He only lied on 9% of his answers.

[oldsam]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Exactly Scooter. I think I said this before, but my buddy is in law school and he told me he did pretty good on a recent big test! He only lied on 9% of his answers.

A silly, flippant answer.

[oldsam]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Lots of things, hearings, potential objections, Statemets of worth etc...

Depends on the chapter filed, the type of debt(secured unsecured) the income level of the individual (in relation to their states median income) etc....

But none of that matters as in our example the subject has no assets and a fixed income below their obligations.

Wrong. The subject is the US Government. Lots of assets and a steady inflow of money.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by oldsam
Wrong. The subject is the US Government. Lots of assets and a steady inflow of money.

Wrong, despite your attempt to twist, the subject is the SS system not the government. The fact that the governement can fix the system is exactly what Bush said/proposed.

The way you put it:

Bush lied when he said the SS sytem will be bankrupt and exhausted unless we do something.

You say this is a lie...... not because the program wont go bankrupt, but rather "because the government WILL do something"???? Thanks for proving Bushs' and my point.

[oldsam]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Wrong, despite your attempt to twist, the subject is the SS system not the government. The fact that the governement can fix the system is exactly what Bush said/proposed.

The way you put it:

Bush lied when he said the SS sytem will be bankrupt and exhausted unless we do something.

You say this is a lie...... not because the program wont go bankrupt, but rather "because the government WILL do something"???? Thanks for proving Bushs' and my point.

Once again, you attempt to speak for me.

The lie was plain and simple. Too simple for you to understand, apparently. The lie was stated way back before you started off with the bankrupt consumer analogy.

By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt. It is an overstatement. But I'm ready to move on to another lie.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Rodeo
How does a bankruptcy get "accepted by the court?"

What exactly happens, and what obligations, if any, does the debtor continue to have to his creditors after this "acceptance by the court?"

Originally posted by lendaddy
Lots of things, hearings, potential objections, Statemets of worth etc...

Depends on the chapter filed, the type of debt(secured unsecured) the income level of the individual (in relation to their states median income) etc....

Com'on, tell us at least some possibilities. What happens after the bankruptcy is "executed?"

Let's say someone owes me $100. Do I get paid anything? If so, how much? When?

Show off you knowledge of the Bankruptcy Code. Answer one simple question.

I mean, you have been arguing bankruptcy law for like 4 pages, you must know something about it ...

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Com'on, tell us at least some possibilities. What happens after the bankruptcy is "executed?"

Let's say someone owes me $100. Do I get paid anything? If so, how much? When?

Show off you knowledge of the Bankruptcy Code. Answer one simple question.

I mean, you have been arguing bankruptcy law for like 4 pages, you must know something about it ...

[sigh] It depends, why do they owe you $100? If this was unsecured debt and beyond the "look backperiod" you'll likely get nothing. Unless they are above the state median income for a comp household then you'll get something (how much I don't know as it's part of the new laws).

If the debt was secured the debtor may wish to reaffirm the debt in which case you'll get regular payments for the full amount if you wish(like starting a new loan).

Or the asset may be liquidated and you'll get its revenue and possibly more from further liquidation.

Or they may set up a chapter 13 program where you get regular payments based on the debtors ability to pay for I think 7 years max???Maybe it's 5?? Either way you get the idea.

And on and on and on, but the answer is "It depends"

But the bottom line is I don't claim to know everything about this....just enough to know that you're full of ****.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by lendaddy
[sigh] It depends, why do they owe you $100?
***And on and on and on, but the answer is "It depends"

The debtor owes me $100 for a tv he bought from me 3 years ago. How much do I get? When?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo
The debtor owes me $100 for a tv he bought from me 3 years ago. How much do I get? When?

Is this a black and white or color tv?









Seriously, what is your point? I think I've shown I know what I'm talking about and I don't claim to know every detail of the law.

But my guess would be that you'de get nothing as the TV would likely fall under the minimum exemptions (stuff they can't take) but that may only apply to furniture I'm not sure.

[Rodeo]

color

[Nathans_Dad]

Either way this discussion of bankruptcy law is worthless and whoever continues to post about it is:

STUCK ON STUPID.

Can we move on please?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo
color

High definition?

[Rodeo]

Not high-def.

So I get nothing? Not the TV? None of my $100?

Doesn't seem fair ... they get the TV and my money?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo
and my money?

Your money???? How did they get your money? Do you also pay this person for "services"?

[CamB]

"I've been to war"

Lie?

"I'm not that concerned about [Bin Laden]"

Lie? Or stupid? You choose.

[oldsam]

"I've been to war" is a lie based on my 30-yr-career in the military. He was not in combat. Period.

I think he borrowed the quote from Ronald Reagan who said something very similar (while making training films in Hollywood).

[Scooter]

September 11, 2001: "Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward, and freedom will be defended."

Now, that is a flat out lie!

We all know it was not a faceless coward, it was: