Talk:Controversy over effects of new bankruptcy law on victims of Katrina

This story isn't fully developed. It's very wandering, and doesn't provide near enough information on the topic you are writing about. What bankruptcy laws? What new democratic proposal? The spelling and grammar needs work as well. Please remove it from the front page and republish it when it is ready. --Wolfrider 03:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Rebuilding from the devastation in the Gulf Coast should be undertaken at personal and private expense. The government didn't build it in the first place. If it matters at all, it will get done without Uncle Sam. -Edbrown05 04:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

POV

I fear that this story is inherently POV. The new bankruptcy law was passed long before Katrina and Rita were a gleam in the Atlantic Ocean's eye; it was literally years in the making. The mere presence of this story suggests malice where there is none. (Not to mention that its current incarnation is blatantly anti-Republican.) —Brent Dax (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Your inherently wrong. The claim of "inherently POV" is always a load of BS. That is the whole point of wikinews. Its a fact that the bankrupsy law will force specific people to pay. Its also true that Republicans are avoiding talking about the matter. This can be said in an NPOV way. Now, I'll agree the current story could use some work, but lets keep some perspective here. - Nyarlathotep 13:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've triued to clean up the article POVwise. I'd appreciate it if the original author would take a look at it now. - Nyarlathotep 15:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned by the fact that I found the same text, "Many Democrats and the Green Party strongly resisted Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 bill because the government would become a bill collector for private companies like Sears or Diversified Collections Services. Failure to pay the government can lead to criminal prosecution under the charge of theft of goods and services or fraud, for people with two strikes this can lead to a third strike" in the POV Wikipedia article "Worldwide Green Parties". I'm worried someone with an agenda is spamming text everywhere. Superm401 | Talk 16:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

No that text is fine, athough Green Party should be eliminated, since they don't do anything, - Nyarlathotep 09:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Alright, the article had seriously deteriorated so I tried to reintroduce all the important points which were being obscured. - Nyarlathotep 10:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)