Bankruptcies up 32%

[1bad65]

"U.S. consumers and businesses are filing for bankruptcy at a pace that made 2009 the seventh-worst year on record, with more than 1.4 million petitions submitted, an Associated Press tally showed Monday.

The AP gathered data from the nation's 90 bankruptcy districts and found 1.43 million filings, an increase of 32 percent from 2008. There were 116,000 recorded bankruptcies in December, up 22 percent from the same month a year before."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100104/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bankruptcy_boom

Looks like more 'Hope' and 'Change', courtesy of our President.

[Drake]

"U.S. consumers and businesses are filing for bankruptcy at a pace that made 2009 the seventh-worst year on record, with more than 1.4 million petitions submitted, an Associated Press tally showed Monday.

The AP gathered data from the nation's 90 bankruptcy districts and found 1.43 million filings, an increase of 32 percent from 2008. There were 116,000 recorded bankruptcies in December, up 22 percent from the same month a year before."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100104/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bankruptcy_boom

Looks like more 'Hope' and 'Change', courtesy of our President.

How can you sensibly blame President Obama for this? It even states that this is a seven year trend. We're still in a recession.

[1bad65]

How can you sensibly blame President Obama for this? It even states that this is a seven year trend. We're still in a recession.

Because a 32% rise from just a year past is incredible.

Without even looking, I'll venture that neither Bush or Reagan had a 32% one-year jump like this, excluding 2005. I exclude 2005 because of this, mentioned in the article: "Bankruptcies surged to slightly more than 2 million in 2005 as consumers rushed to file before the new [bankruptcy] law took effect but then plummeted to 600,000 in 2006. They've been climbing ever since and in 2009 became the seventh-highest year on record, behind only the years 1998 and 2001-2005."

Let's be honest here, do you really think his policies will result in more or less bankruptcies in 2010?

[Drake]

Because a 32% rise from just a year past is incredible.

Without even looking, I'll venture that neither Bush or Reagan had a 32% one-year jump like this, excluding 2005. I exclude 2005 because of this, mentioned in the article: "Bankruptcies surged to slightly more than 2 million in 2005 as consumers rushed to file before the new [bankruptcy] law took effect but then plummeted to 600,000 in 2006. They've been climbing ever since and in 2009 became the seventh-highest year on record, behind only the years 1998 and 2001-2005."

Let's be honest here, do you really think his policies will result in more or less bankruptcies in 2010?

This is common sense economics. The bankruptcies from last year cannot possibly have been affected by the current administration. It takes too long. Name me one policy which may have caused such a huge increase in bankruptices that occured in tandem with a current shift in direction. In fact, name a contributing factor from the Obama administration that could be responsible.

This doesn't pass Economics 101 logic.

[mawali]

"U.S. consumers and businesses are filing for bankruptcy at a pace that made 2009 the seventh-worst year on record, with more than 1.4 million petitions submitted, an Associated Press tally showed Monday.

The AP gathered data from the nation's 90 bankruptcy districts and found 1.43 million filings, an increase of 32 percent from 2008. There were 116,000 recorded bankruptcies in December, up 22 percent from the same month a year before."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100104/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bankruptcy_boom

Looks like more 'Hope' and 'Change', courtesy of our President.

Yes, the context is correct. People losing jobs, Madoff like scandals exacerbating the conditions, banks failing to lend money despite their benefits from the present government, Nothing wrong with transparency in business and governemnt enterprise but how can any sensible person blame Obama?

Stuff like that doesn't just happen immediately like Katrina or similar catastrophe!

[Drake]

And don't leave out inconvenient parts of the article...

"For three years, filings have been steadily rising back toward levels reached early in the decade before Congress overhauled the nation's bankruptcy laws. The 2005 alterations made bankruptcy filings more cumbersome, a move that followed fears from lenders that some consumers were abusing the system to wipe away debts.

Bankruptcies surged to slightly more than 2 million in 2005 as consumers rushed to file before the new law took effect but then plummeted to 600,000 in 2006. They've been climbing ever since and in 2009 became the seventh-highest year on record, behind only the years 1998 and 2001-2005.

The 2005 spike had been preceded by a steady climb from 1.5 million in 2001 to 1.6 million in 2005.

John Pottow, a bankruptcy professor at the University of Michigan, said the return to the highs of earlier this decade illustrates the failures of the 2005 overhaul bill. He said the measure largely made filings more costly and time-consuming by forcing consumers to undergo a paperwork-heavy test to determine eligibility for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and adding liability for attorneys who provide help.

"It never made sense in the first place that you could change the laws and make all these bankruptcies go away," said Pottow, who would like to see the 2005 law changes repealed. "If people are encountering financial distress, you can only scare them away for so long before they come back again." "

[sanjuro_ronin]

Companies go banrupt because they can no longer sustain the debt that they have CARRIED for years.
Don't know of anyone that has gone under because just one or 2 years of debt.

[Reality_Check]

Because a 32% rise from just a year past is incredible.

Without even looking, I'll venture that neither Bush or Reagan had a 32% one-year jump like this, excluding 2005. I exclude 2005 because of this, mentioned in the article: "Bankruptcies surged to slightly more than 2 million in 2005 as consumers rushed to file before the new [bankruptcy] law took effect but then plummeted to 600,000 in 2006. They've been climbing ever since and in 2009 became the seventh-highest year on record, behind only the years 1998 and 2001-2005."

Perhaps you should have checked.

Source: American Bankruptcy Institute (http://www.abiworld.org/AM/AMTemplate.cfm?Section=Annual_U_S_Filings1&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=57826)

"Annual Business and Non-business Filings by Year (1980-2008)"

2007 - 850,912
2008 - 1,117,771
Percentage Increase: 31.4%

2006 - 617,660
2007 - 850,912
Percentage Increase - 37.8%

1985 - 412,510
1986 - 530,438
Percentage Increase - 28.6%

[1bad65]

Companies go banrupt because they can no longer sustain the debt that they have CARRIED for years.
Don't know of anyone that has gone under because just one or 2 years of debt.

Kind of scary considering our country is carrying record levels of debt....

[1bad65]

Perhaps you should have checked.

So it's not so abnormal. Of course bankruptcies were not near this bad under Reagan. ;)

But here is a record Obama just set! "Pending home sales unexpectedly plunged in November, according to a report issued Tuesday by the National Association of Realtors, posting their largest drop on record after several months of positive gains for a closely-watched indicator of housing market activity.

According to the industry group, November pending home sales activity dropped by 16% to a reading of 96.0, compared with the previous month’s reading of 114.3. The drop was much larger than expected by Wall Street, which was looking for a dip of 2% for the indicator for November.

It was the largest drop, point-wise, since the industry group started the index in 2001, dragging the indicator to its lowest level since June."

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/real-estate/home-sales-plunge--november/

[1bad65]

"The head of C-SPAN has implored Congress to open up the last leg of health care reform negotiations to the public, as top Democrats lay plans to hash out the final product among themselves.

C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb wrote to leaders in the House and Senate Dec. 30 urging them to open "all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings," to televised coverage on his network.

"The C-SPAN networks will commit the necessary resources to covering all of the sessions LIVE and in their entirety," he wrote.

Congressional leaders, however, reportedly are expected to bypass the traditional conference committee process, in which lawmakers from both parties and chambers meet to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of a bill. Instead, The Associated Press reports that top Democrats at the House, Senate and White House will figure out the final product in three-way talks before sending it back to both chambers for a final vote.

This format would seem ideal for closed-door meetings, which congressional Democrats have used many times to figure out sensitive provisions in the health care bill -- though President Obama pledged during the campaign to open up health care talks to C-SPAN's cameras.

"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are," Obama said at a debate against Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/05/c-span-challenges-congress-open-health-care-talks-tv-coverage/

And keep this very important, but rarely mentioned fact when discussing healthcare....Congress has exempted themselves from the legislation! Gee, if it's such a great program for all Americans, why did they make **** sure they are exempted?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Kind of scary considering our country is carrying record levels of debt....

Things will get worse before they get better.

You know what is truly sad?
Small business and micro business are the blood of any country and they get nothing from government.
EX:
The 250 million given to GM in Oshawa by the Ontario government here? it did nothing, ZERO.
Gm was burning throw that by the month, just to keep up with paying off its debts.
BUT, 100K given to 2500 business or 250K given to 1000 business on the condition that they hire and keep at least 1 full time job for at least 2 years ( 2 jobs if it was 250K) would have made a HUGE difference in the local economy, it would have created at least 1000 new jobs.

[Drake]

So it's not so abnormal. Of course bankruptcies were not near this bad under Reagan. ;)

But here is a record Obama just set! "Pending home sales unexpectedly plunged in November, according to a report issued Tuesday by the National Association of Realtors, posting their largest drop on record after several months of positive gains for a closely-watched indicator of housing market activity.

According to the industry group, November pending home sales activity dropped by 16% to a reading of 96.0, compared with the previous month’s reading of 114.3. The drop was much larger than expected by Wall Street, which was looking for a dip of 2% for the indicator for November.

It was the largest drop, point-wise, since the industry group started the index in 2001, dragging the indicator to its lowest level since June."

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/real-estate/home-sales-plunge--november/

What is up with you blaming Obama for this, dude? Come on... this has absolutely nothing to do with him and you know it. Again, name the policy from his administration which caused this.

And stop plugging Reagan. We all know he did great stuff, but there have been two mediocre Republican presidents since, and currently the party has zero presidential prospects. It may be Dems vs. Independents before too long.

[1bad65]

Things will get worse before they get better.

You know what is truly sad?
Small business and micro business are the blood of any country and they get nothing from government.

Exactly. This is why across the board tax cuts work so well. ALL businesses get them and can reinvest the money into the business to grow it.


What is up with you blaming Obama for this, dude? Come on... this has absolutely nothing to do with him and you know it. Again, name the policy from his administration which caused this.

And stop plugging Reagan. We all know he did great stuff, but there have been two mediocre Republican presidents since, and currently the party has zero presidential prospects. It may be Dems vs. Independents before too long.

I blame him because he has so far increased our debt and refuses to give businesses what they are begging for, relief from taxes and regulation. Obama has messed up in many ways: Record debt. This has resulted in fear of inflation, thus banks are leary of lending, and businesses leary of expanding. Health care. Again, he has scared both businesses and consumers with this boondoggle. First off it creates even more debt! And it is a huge tax increase on middle-class Americans who currently have the great healthcare plans. Cap and Trade. Obama has indicated he wants to enact this. This also terrifies businesses. They will either have to suffer huge new fees/taxes or offshore more American jobs. Both solutions are bad for the American economy (although China will no doubt benefit when more American jobs fall into their lap).

As for it being Dems vs Independants soon, we shall see. I think the 2010 elections are gonna make 1994 look tame for the Democrats. Americans now realize they got fooled by this liar. He ran as a conservative Democrat and has governed as a socialist and spent money like a drunken sailor. Can you name any conservative policies he has enacted?

[MasterKiller]

Kind of scary considering our country is carrying record levels of debt....

The costs of maintaining a US presence in Iraq now runs a tab of about $435 million a day -- $3 billion a week, or $12 billion a month. The US has siphoned some $500 billion taxpayer dollars into Iraq, for a war that was supposed to be "sharp" and brief. Interest payments add another $615 billion, and the price tag of repairing a depleted military is projected at $280 billion.

Costs of the war

-- $435 million: Cost of Iraq war each day.

-- $526 billion: Cost of combat operations to date.

-- $1.2 trillion to $1.7 trillion: Estimated Afghanistan and Iraq combat costs through 2017.

-- $590 billion: Future costs of disability benefits and health care for Iraq war veterans.

-- $615 billion: Cost of interest on money borrowed to pay for the war.

-- $280 billion: Cost of replacing equipment and restoring U.S. military to prewar strength.

-- $16,500: Cost of the war to each U.S. family of four from 2003-2008.

-- $36,900: Cost of the war to each family if the war continues for 10 years.

-- $274 billion: Cost of increased oil prices related to the Iraq war, 2003-2008.

What $435 million per day could do

-- Enroll 58,000 children in Head Start.

-- Put 8,900 police officers on the street.

-- Provide health insurance to 329,200 low-income children.

-- Hire 10,700 Border Patrol agents.

-- Give Pell Grants to 163,700 college students.

-- Provide foreclosure prevention counseling to 260,000 families.

[Drake]

Exactly. Historically, every war put us deeply into debt. This one (or two) is no different. One of Reagan's priorities was downsizing the force the moment he saw that the USSR was going to collapse, because it was so expensive. Pres. Clinton took the credit for the drop in debt that resulted from this. As always, the results were not seen until the one enacting the policy was long gone.

[1bad65]

The costs of maintaining a US presence in Iraq now runs a tab of about $435 million a day -- $3 billion a week, or $12 billion a month.

Your point being?

It's no longer "Bush's War". Obama could have pulled out and left if he so chose toand saved that money. Second off, we were attacked by these people. Although I'm no Obama fan, I do give him some credit we haven't had another air disaster yet, although he is to blame for the Christmas day near-miss. I predict further terrorism as terrorists now realize Obama has softened our stance on dealing with them by promising to close Gitmo and by giving them trials normally reserved for American citizens, not enemy combatants.

[1bad65]

Exactly. Historically, every war put us deeply into debt. This one (or two) is no different. One of Reagan's priorities was downsizing the force the moment he saw that the USSR was going to collapse, because it was so expensive. Pres. Clinton took the credit for the drop in debt that resulted from this. As always, the results were not seen until the one enacting the policy was long gone.

Agreed 100%

[MasterKiller]

It's no longer "Bush's War". Republicans across the board are to blame for the rush into Iraq, not just Bush.


Second off, we were attacked by these people. 9/11 was funded or enabled by Saddam Hussein? Where is this evidence, again?

The majority of hijackers were from what country, again?

[1bad65]

Republicans across the board are to blame for the rush into Iraq, not just Bush.

And now Obama is still there. He's been in office a full year now, 1/4 of a Presidential term. When is it no longer "Bush's fault" for his problems? No one yet has answered that question....


9/11 was funded or enabled by Saddam Hussein? Where is this evidence, again?

The majority of hijackers were from what country, again?

Hussein openly supported terrorism. He allowed them to train there and openly boasted about how he gave suicide bomber's families money. I've said this a million times now, do I need to keep saying it?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Hussein openly supported terrorism. He allowed them to train there and openly boasted about how he gave suicide bomber's families money. I've said this a million times now, do I need to keep saying it?

Ah dude, so did SA, Pakisatan, Iran, and many other, when will they be invaded?

[MasterKiller]

And now Obama is still there. He's been in office a full year now, 1/4 of a Presidential term. When is it no longer "Bush's fault" for his problems? No one yet has answered that question.... So Reagan gets credit for all the windfalls after Clinton's first year, but Bush is blameless on the debt he left Obama one year into his administration?




Hussein openly supported terrorism. He allowed them to train there and openly boasted about how he gave suicide bomber's families money. I've said this a million times now, do I need to keep saying it?

"We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period." -- George Tenet.

[Drake]

Al Qaeda didn't like Hussein. Bin Laden even stated why, saying that Hussein was more interested in self-glorification than glorification of Allah. There WERE links to Al Qaeda being in Iraq, but not by invitation, not even close to the degree they are there now, and the links were tenuous at best. The only link we had was an Al Qaeda operative found dead in a hotel in Baghdad, pre-war. The reason for war was based on George Tenet providing Pres Bush some woefully inaccurate information that he never verified prior to advising the commander in chief. He took responsibility for Pres Bush thinking there was a nuke program in Iraq.

And 1Bad, you disappoint me. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of logistics knows that less than a year isn't even a remotely realistic expectation for withdrawl from Iraq. Even if we wanted to, and moved at full speed, it could take several years to get out the massive amount of troops, vehicles, and materials we have down there. I know nobody here except me has been there, so you'll have to trust me... it is a MASSIVE undertaking, and it will take time. We have our logistics officers down there pulling their hair out trying to make deadlines, figuring out what goes to the Iraqis, what goes to Afghanistan, and what comes back to the states. The trip consists of numerous flights through different countries, each with their own customs rules. Same goes with sea transport.

At least Pres Obama is making the move, and units are already being diverted out of Iraq.

Honestly, what is up with this black and white, surface level analysis going on here? It reads like a hollywood movie plot, chock full of wrong assumptions and lack of understanding of the situation.

[1bad65]

So Reagan gets credit for all the windfalls after Clinton's first year, but Bush is blameless on the debt he left Obama one year into his administration?

Depends on the specifics. Yes, you would have to credit Reagan for destroying the USSR which enabled Clinton to make huge cuts in defense, which helped him (and the Republican Congress) balance the budget. IMO, no President could have balanced the budget while the Cold War was going on.

But how can he continue to blame Bush when he is doing the exact same things, only worse? Bush bailed out some companies with taxpayer money, Obama bailed out MORE. Bush was fighting terrorism, Obama is too, and spending MORE. So again, how come he still blames Bush when he is doing what Bush did, only worse?

[1bad65]

And 1Bad, you disappoint me. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of logistics knows that less than a year isn't even a remotely realistic expectation for withdrawl from Iraq. Even if we wanted to, and moved at full speed, it could take several years to get out the massive amount of troops, vehicles, and materials we have down there. I know nobody here except me has been there, so you'll have to trust me... it is a MASSIVE undertaking, and it will take time. We have our logistics officers down there pulling their hair out trying to make deadlines, figuring out what goes to the Iraqis, what goes to Afghanistan, and what comes back to the states. The trip consists of numerous flights through different countries, each with their own customs rules. Same goes with sea transport.

I simplified my post. I know it's not a simple "pack up and leave" operation. My point was that Obama is still fighting the War on Terror, yet blaming Bush for the cost of it while spending more money on it.

One more question for MK: If the war is costing us too much, why doesn't Obama clamp down on Federal spending until the war ends instead of borrowing record amounts of money from China?

[MasterKiller]

My point was that Obama is still fighting the War on Terror, yet blaming Bush for the cost of it while spending more money on it. You have to fix what you break. Didn't your mommy ever teach you that?


One more question for MK: If the war is costing us too much, why doesn't Obama clamp down on Federal spending until the war ends instead of borrowing record amounts of money from China?
If the economy stalls, there will be no tax money generated to pay for anything, including the war. Either borrow money to keep people healthy and working, or borrow money to make up for the lost tax revenue from people being sick and not working.

Of course, if we hadn't gone into Iraq in the first place, we wouldn't need to borrow sh1t. But I think that point is lost on you.

I don't like deficit spending at all. I don't even carry a balance on my own credit card. But you cannot expect Obama to pay off 8 years of massive borrowing to fund the war in just 12 months.

[1bad65]

You have to fix what you break. Didn't your mommy ever teach you that?

So doing exactly what the other guy you are blaming did is how you would fix whats broken?


If the economy stalls, there will be no tax money generated to pay for anything, including the war. Either borrow money to keep people healthy and working, or borrow money to make up for the lost tax revenue from people being sick and not working.

Of course, if we hadn't gone into Iraq in the first place, we wouldn't need to borrow sh1t. But I think that point is lost on you.

I don't like deficit spending at all. I don't even carry a balance on my own credit card. But you cannot expect Obama to pay off 8 years of massive borrowing to fund the war in just 12 months.

LMAO at "if the economy stalls"! It's a mess now. Is this news to you?

And his borrowing money is not keeping people working. Unemployment is HIGHER now than when he took office.

And we were running deficits before Iraq. So stop blaiming the war for every economic problem.

If you don't like deficit spending, why in the world are you defending a guy who has set records for deficit spending? :confused: