Consumer Bankruptcies Hit 5-Year High in 2010

Discussion in 'Economy' started by gunnyrogers55, Jan 4, 2011.

  1. gunnyrogers55
    Offline

    gunnyrogers55 Do you even understand?

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    22
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    fl
    Ratings:
    +2
    The number of U.S. consumers who filed for bankruptcy protection in 2010 was the highest in five years, and the figure could rise as Americans struggle with excess debt in an uncertain economy, a report issued Monday said.
    Roughly 1.53 million consumer bankruptcy petitions were filed in 2010, up 9 percent from 1.41 million in 2009, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute, citing data from the National Bankruptcy Research Center.
    Filings in December totaled 118,146, up 4 percent from a year earlier and 3 percent from November's total.
    The full-year total is the highest since the 2.04 million recorded in 2005, when there was a rush to seek bankruptcy protection ahead of a stricter federal law taking effect in October of that year.

    There were 2.94 million U.S. consumer bankruptcy filings in 2009 and 2010, the most over a two calendar year period since the 3.6 million recorded in 2004 and 2005.
    "The (2005) law was supposed to reduce filings, but we are very close to levels we were at then," Gerdano said. "The laws of economic gravity are more powerful than the laws passed by Congress


    Does this mean people are just being cautious or does it mean the end/bottom of this mess still isn't in site like many are saying?
     
  2. Mr. Sauerkraut
    Offline

    Mr. Sauerkraut Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2010
    Messages:
    611
    Thanks Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Heart of Germany
    Ratings:
    +84
    Hi

    I like to know, what does "personal bankruptcy" mean in the usa?

    We have a law in germany, what´s call the "personal insolvence principle". When you´re bankrupt, you can go to a lawyer who brings you into this act. Then, when all the administration works are correctly done, you have to pay for seven years all you could pay (minus the costs for your needs to live) to your creditors and debtees. After seven years, the rest of your debts are gone. You don´t have to pay back everything.

    It´s a very hard and difficult way. But it´s a way to start again. Do you have something similar in the usa?
     
  3. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    We USED To have bankruptsy laws that basically worked this way;

    ...Your assets were tallied up, against your debts.

    ...You gave up all assets (in some cases, you could keep your home), your creditors took whatever percentage of that that they were owed (that your assets could pay)

    ...and then you were free and clear of those debts.

    ...Then you could not declared bankruptsy for 7 years.

    Thanks in large part ot the DEMOCRATS (and with the approval of the Republicans, too) we changed those laws to the detriment of the consumers

    Now, a COURT DECIDES how much of the residual debts you owe (after you lose all assets) that you'll continue to pay even after declaring bankruptsy.

    This GIFT was given to the credit card companies thanks to the credit cards companies' generous donations to members of CONGRESS and BOTH parties.

    Now even though credit card companies could lure people into debt with lowe rates, once the debt was assumed, the credit card companies could (and did) raise the rate of interest on that existing debts.

    So people who borrowed on cards at 4% could the following day, and entirely at the dsescrimination of the CC comapny, find they now had to pay interest rates on their existing balances of 20, 22, 26%!

    Nice, huh?

    You borrow at one rate and the lender can increase the rate of interest you own on your blance by 500% or 600% and THAT okay?

    FYI, Obama, the Democrat, pretended to fix that problem.

    Know what he did?

    Now, after you assume debt at some low rate, the CC company has to give you 30 days before they can jack up the rate to whatever the hell they feel like.

    THAT is a LIMO-LIBERAL's way of pretending that he's taking care of the little guy.

    They call their bill a CREDIUT CARD REFORM, but when you look into the details?

    It's basically like applying a bandaid to a gushing arterial wound.

    The credit card companies can still lure people in with low rates and then (after thirty days notice) jack them up to whatever rate they care to apply to it.

    Now that kind of lending rip off used to be called USARY. The mafia used to go to prison for doing shit like that

    Now, it's just good old American capitalism in action.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2011
  4. Mr. Sauerkraut
    Offline

    Mr. Sauerkraut Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2010
    Messages:
    611
    Thanks Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Heart of Germany
    Ratings:
    +84
    wow. and you´re not burning down the CC Companies?

    When you go to studies economics and business admistration here, thie first thing you learn is that all business is based of "trust and faith". That means, that whatever or whoever i´m going to deal with, i basically have to trust that the deal is worthy and all contracts will be fulfilled.

    Who said: "Only dumb gangsters trying to rob out a bank. A real gangster incorporates one."
     
  5. Mini 14
    Offline

    Mini 14 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    3,947
    Thanks Received:
    570
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +570
    Bankruptcy in the US is as socialist a concept as there is. Having been a creditor in many bankruptcies, I've stopped fighting them at all. You get nothing, and the deadbeat gets to walk away scot-free.

    Even a secured debt is no good in most cases. I paid for almost $1,000,000 of logging equipment that a former partner is now using for free, because he declared bankruptcy (and yes, I had all the documentation and liens to show ownership, but the Trustee felt my partner needed them to make a living, and they were merely "an asset" to me, so his 2% ownership, combined with his bankruptcy, made him a wealthy man overnight, and put 34 other hard-working people out of a job).

    My new rule is I only take partners with A LOT more money than me. :)
     

Share This Page