Elderly Americans Increasingly Declaring Bankruptcy

[Onions]

Elderly Americans struggling under the weight of credit card debt and medical bills are increasingly resorting to bankruptcy in retirement.

A slew of recent data highlights the problem:

A 2010 study from the University of Michigan Law School, called The Rise in Elder Bankruptcy Filings, found that those 65 and older are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population seeking bankruptcy protection
The Washington D.C.-based public policy group Demos reports that Americans 65 and above who carry a balance on their credit cards owe an average of $10,235 -- up 26% from 2005.

Older debtors who filed for bankruptcy owed a median $22,562 to credit card companies, the Michigan study showed
"The findings are both striking and ominous," says John Pottow, author of the University of Michigan study. "While multiple factors, such as health problems and medical debts, contribute to elders' financial distress, the dominant force appears to be overwhelming burdens related to credit cards."

Pottow's study found that elder debtors carry 50% more credit card debt than younger debtors, and seniors cite credit card interest and fees as a reason for their bankruptcy filings 50% more frequently.

Unfortunately, the rise in bankruptcy filings among the elderly isn't merely a recent phenomenon, or a reflection of the Great Recession. Even before the recession hit, seniors were struggling.

From 1991 to 2007, the rate of personal bankruptcy filings among those ages 65 or older soared by 150%, according to AARP, which released research on the issue via the Consumer Bankruptcy Project. At the time, the biggest jump in bankruptcy filings occurred among people aged 75 to 84; their rate skyrocketed 433%.

Even more alarming: Some experts think that since Americans collectively owe roughly $2.4 trillion on their credit cards and consumer debts, the bankruptcy problem will only continue to grow.

"People usually live off credit cards for a year or so before they file bankruptcy," says bankruptcy attorney Theodore Connolly, the author of The Road Out of Debt: Bankruptcy and Other Solutions to Your Financial Problems.

Connolly notes that personal bankruptcies already hit a record 1.5 million filings in the first half of 2010.

In considering when to file for bankruptcy protection, as I recently reported here on WalletPop, there are times when bankruptcy makes sense and times when other alternatives and strategies are best.

The challenge for seniors, however, is that when they run into financial trouble their options may be somewhat limited. For example, unlike younger Americans who may be able to obtain work, put in more hours on the job, or perhaps get a second job to make ends meet, those choices don't always exist for everyone in their 60s and beyond.

[Dinsdale]

B-b-b-b-b-b-but... the feds were supposed to take care of everybody....

or at least that's what I inferred by them taking 15% of everybody's money right off the top in the name of taking care of everybody.


The Greeks and Irish are very shocked that this isn't working, really.

[Onions]

B-b-b-b-b-b-but... the feds were supposed to take care of everybody....

or at least that's what I inferred by them taking 15% of everybody's money right off the top in the name of taking care of everybody.


The Greeks and Irish are very shocked that this isn't working, really.

are you posting from the year 2013?

[Dinsdale]

are you posting from the year 2013?

No, I'm posting from the year 1935, dumbass.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

There's a mountain top somewhere in Afghanistan that hasn't been impacted by a cruise missile yet and you mingers are moaning about retirement worries?

Honestly, sometimes Americans can be so selfish.

[Dr_Phibes]

B-b-b-b-b-b-but... the feds were supposed to take care of everybody....

That's exactly what they didn't do, they couldn't get what they wanted, so they threw a giant wrench into a machine and hoped for the best. What they're doing is stupid and it's dangerous, it exacerbates the problem. Paper formulas reforming massive institutions are what brought down the USSR and by comparison, they haven't even got as far as a formula.

[Dinsdale]

Paper formulas reforming massive institutions are what brought down the USSR

The huge weight of a military quagmire, class warfare, draconian control of every aspect of citizens' lives, noncompetitive markets, non-autonomy of individual states, huge trade deficits due to poor fiscal/import-export policy, and a ridiculously top-heavy bureaucracy are what led to the Soviet collapse.


And the USA and OPEC drilled the living shit out of the oilfields, which pretty much cut off their cash cow.

And when the government has to have its hands in absolutely everything, it creates an impetus for the citizens to find and end-around to counter it, be it black markets, bartering, and other means.

Gorbachev treid to save it, but it was way too little, way too late.


Nothing to see here, move along. Doesn't mirror the American situation, at all.


Boris Yeltsen should be walking through the Capitol doors any time now to fix everything.

[Dr_Phibes]

The huge weight of a military quagmire, class warfare, draconian control of every aspect of citizens' lives, noncompetitive markets, non-autonomy of individual states, huge trade deficits due to poor fiscal/import-export policy, and a ridiculously top-heavy bureaucracy are what led to the Soviet collapse.

This is horseshit, none of it is measurable, it's just rhetoric and it passes itself off as history in an American classroom. This bit is true:

huge trade deficits due to poor fiscal/import-export policy

GDP rate was 2% at the time of collapse, Afghanistan ate up thirteen thousand men over a decade, nothing to write home about.

The problem was, the command structure was destroyed and it was the only thing that made it work. Whether or not you agree with the method is irrelevant - systems and functions that were a fundamental part of the whole, were torn apart and nothing was put in place to substitute them.

There was no uprising, no people running around with AK-47s fighting The Party. Gorbachev quietly accumulated more power than Stalin ever had, transferred power from party to state, when no state apparatus existed.
The USSR collapsed because a group of Utopian morons started tinkering with things they didn't understand and it only took two short years to fall apart.

I'm exaggerating the outcome, but the comparison holds true.

[Dinsdale]

The USSR collapsed because a group of Utopian morons started tinkering with things they didn't understand and it only took two short years to fall apart.

Uhm... no.

More like 12 years. It was Carter who first started shoving the dildo up their ass, and Raygun rammed it home.


The reason for the Soviet collapse can actually be put in very simple terms -- the people were working for the government, rather than the government working for the people.

Makes the outcome inevitable, unless you care to cite an example to the contrary?

Which is essentially why the modern version of an American "liberal" is a complete fucking moron, to be mocked.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

The reason for the Soviet collapse can actually be put in very simple terms --

The reason for the Soviet collapse can be put in these simple terms:

Decades of imperialist/capitalist agit-prop finally succeeding in brainwashing Eastern European potato jockeys into believing that by betraying the principles of egalitarianism and communality, they themselves can enjoy the extravagant, bourgeois selfishness their Western counterparts enjoyed.

But it didn't turn out that way. It never does.

Once the tinsel settled on the floor and the Pink Floyd light show was unplugged, they were faced with the reality that they had sold their souls for a fist full of magic beans, peddled by Madison Ave hucksters that bottle Utopian fantasies and market them towards the poorest and most desperate.

Sound familiar?

[Derron]

The reason for the Soviet collapse can actually be put in very simple terms -- the people were working for the government, rather than the government working for the people.

Hmmm... seems we have some very similar situations in US society today.

Which is essentially why the modern version of an American "liberal" is a complete fucking moron, to be mocked.

Now that is some funny shit...... Que the bleeding pussy liberal meltdown to start in 3...2...1....

[Blitzen]

In Lapland, it's strictly ONE REINDEER, ONE VOTE

We mark the ballot box with our urine too.

[Dr_Phibes]

I don't recall Carter or Reagan shoving giant dildos up the Soviet's ass. Scott Norwood missed a kick, the Giants didn't block it.

Makes the outcome inevitable, unless you care to cite an example to the contrary?

You think modern private enterprise is a natural state of affairs when it isn't, it's fairly recent. You're projecting American history onto the whole of history of economies, there are others more advanced than yours.

You seem to be assuming that the capitalist mode of production is inherently more efficient than the socialist mode of production. This may have seemed 'obvious' in the 1980s, but it certainly did not seem obvious in the 1930s. The West was stagnating while the Soviet economy was expanding by leaps and bounds under Stalin's Five Year Plans.
A planned socialist economy seemed to be the wave of the future; a rational, efficient economy which avoided the inefficiencies, wastage and inequities of an outmoded capitalism. The question is, what went wrong? How did capitalism manage to recover from the worst crisis in its history, while socialism went from triumphant expansion to stagnation and then collapse?
The future collapse of the Soviet Union must therefore be looked for, not in the 1980s, but in the transition between Stalinist expansion and Brezhnevite stagnation; that is, in the premiership of Khrushchev.

I am in solidarity with your hatred of modern American Liberals. They abandoned the working class as a force for change because it's icky and mean and people get shot - and traded it in for getting women in the fire department and fags in the army.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

RACK

[Bizzarofelice]

dinsdale did not do well in this thread.

[Goober McTuber]

In considering when to file for bankruptcy protection, as I recently reported here on WalletPop, there are times when bankruptcy makes sense and times when other alternatives and strategies are best.

So you own walletpop.com? Go fuck yourself.

[Derron]

You seem to be assuming that the capitalist mode of production is inherently more efficient than the socialist mode of production. This may have seemed 'obvious' in the 1980s, but it certainly did not seem obvious in the 1930s. The West was stagnating while the Soviet economy was expanding by leaps and bounds under Stalin's Five Year Plans.
A planned socialist economy seemed to be the wave of the future; a rational, efficient economy which avoided the inefficiencies, wastage and inequities of an outmoded capitalism. The question is, what went wrong? How did capitalism manage to recover from the worst crisis in its history, while socialism went from triumphant expansion to stagnation and then collapse?
The future collapse of the Soviet Union must therefore be looked for, not in the 1980s, but in the transition between Stalinist expansion and Brezhnevite stagnation; that is, in the premiership of Khrushchev.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but didn't Stalin's five year plans include the "purging" of more than 7,000,000 humans during this period of triumphant socialist expansion?

You seem to be letting a silly little thing like human rights get in the way of economic growth.

Sin,

China

[Dinsdale]

It's OK to kill millions upon millions of people, if they stand in the way of economic utopia, even if said economic utopia has a MUCH greater differential in the % of wealth that the ruling class controls than the USA's worst day. The people will accept it with open arms, shrug their shoulders and wave goodbye to the slaughtered masses -- and it will in no way create discontent and lead to the collapse of an empire... neither will getting your ass handed to you in a shit-war. And the rest of the world getting tired of your act and cutting off your purse strings won't have any æffect, either.

At least that's what my America-hating college professor told me.

Sin,
Phibes


Fibs - once Carter made nice with Egypt, the Suadis and much of OPEC ramped up the oilfields, and crashed the Soviet market for their only meaningful export. At the same time, he made sure all of the US allies quit doing business with the USSR. We bash on Carter, but he started the job that Reagan finished.

[Dr_Phibes]

That didn't collapse the USSR? I've never heard it put like that - there were a series of events that built up over time that certainly weren't helpful, but no external trigger. I wasn't a 'death by a thousand cuts'.

The Soviet economy went into free-fall as a direct result of Gorbachev's bungling 'reforms'. The economy was stagnating under Brezhnev, but at least it was functioning; people were paid their salaries, food, housing and transport were cheap and in reasonably good supply. It couldn't compare to the consumer society of the USA or Western Europe, but it was much better than anything in Russian history before. Gorbachev came along and wrecked it all with his naive and shaky grasp of economics.
A very specific set of reforms, hazy recollections of Lenin's New Economic Policy (designed for the peasantry, not an urban, industrial power), all incredibly naive, were set into motion at the same time:

Glasnost: Disintegration of authority
Perestroika: Destruction of the old mechanisms that made the economy work without providing an alternative

The US had nothing to do with it. Existing Communist states saw what happened and the facts weren't lost on them. China gave their 'protesters' a whiff of grapeshot because they didn't want a repeat of the Soviet collapse, it wasn't out of fear of you.

[Mikey]

Fibs - once Carter made nice with Egypt, the Suadis and much of OPEC ramped up the oilfields, and crashed the Soviet market for their only meaningful export. At the same time, he made sure all of the US allies quit doing business with the USSR. We bash on Carter, but he started the job that Reagan finished.

That may be true, but he put solar panels on the White House.

What an ultra-maroon.

[Plato]

dinsdale did not do well in this thread.

True enough.

And those who wasted time reading his folderol did considerably worse.

[smackaholic]

That didn't collapse the USSR? I've never heard it put like that - there were a series of events that built up over time that certainly weren't helpful, but no external trigger. I wasn't a 'death by a thousand cuts'.

The Soviet economy went into free-fall as a direct result of Gorbachev's bungling 'reforms'. The economy was stagnating under Brezhnev, but at least it was functioning; people were paid their salaries, food, housing and transport were cheap and in reasonably good supply. It couldn't compare to the consumer society of the USA or Western Europe, but it was much better than anything in Russian history before. Gorbachev came along and wrecked it all with his naive and shaky grasp of economics.
A very specific set of reforms, hazy recollections of Lenin's New Economic Policy (designed for the peasantry, not an urban, industrial power), all incredibly naive, were set into motion at the same time:

Glasnost: Disintegration of authority
Perestroika: Destruction of the old mechanisms that made the economy work without providing an alternative

The US had nothing to do with it. Existing Communist states saw what happened and the facts weren't lost on them. China gave their 'protesters' a whiff of grapeshot because they didn't want a repeat of the Soviet collapse, it wasn't out of fear of you.

Well, at least you are honest, comrade phibes. You admit that the only way to have a communist system work, is through jack booted thuggery. i guess the countless fukks that end up on the wrong side of that boot is just the price you have to pay, huh?

[Dinsdale]

Fibs thinking that the USA drawing a line in the sand and forcing everyone to choose sides had nothing to do with the Soviet collapse is just plain silly, and a fine example of anti-US revisionist history.

The reason Gorbachev (and predecessors) changed up their economic policy is because they had to. It wasn't some random event. It wasn't a sustainable policy to begin with (and it took threat of gulags and execution to make it work for the time it did).

Nixon made nice with China, who previously had sided strongly with the USSR (a slap in the face, since the US kinda saved millions and millions of them from slaughter).

Carter double whammied them -- made nice with Egypt, which garnered respect with the other OPEC members. Egypt, then the military power of the Middle East, was in the Soviet's back pocket -- Carter Camp Davided that arrangement right out the window (good Cold War move, turned out bad in the long-term). The Soviets had about one thing worth exporting to fund their failing system, and increased OPEC output pretty much killed it. They were also getting wheat and other food "through the backdoor" from the USA, and Carter saw to it that the middlemen chilled out and cut them off.

At that point, their ship was sinking... enter Ronald Raygun. Ramped "defense" (strong offense) up so quickly, things went in a tizzy. While ultimately a drop-in-the-bucket financially, every move Reagan made was another nail in the coffin in what was, under the surface, a very long-term, and ultimately successful propaganda war... and the USA won. It was mostly just a matter of showing their people how the Other Half lived.

To try and credit all of that to a couple of mistimed strokes of the pen by Gorby is just plain silly.


But I will give Phibes his props -- unlike certain tards, he's actually engaging in a thought-provoking, interesting discussion, rather than being tardly with "Dinsdale is getting his ass handed to him," or any other such stupidity. We're not trading schoolyard taunts, we're talking Cold War history, which is interesting stuff, with as many opinions as there are people discussing it.


I'm guessing mvscal probably has some opinions on this, too.

[mvscal]

The economy was stagnating under Brezhnev, but at least it was functioning;

Please define 'functioning' as it relates to the Soviet economy under Brezhnev. If by 'functioning' you mean caught in a slow, death spiral then, yes, it was 'functioning.' Are you even old enough to remember those years?

If you aren't, then maybe you could crack a newspaper and read all about the ongoing collapse of European socialism all across the continent.

[mvscal]

Nixon made nice with China, who previously had sided strongly with the USSR (a slap in the face, since the US kinda saved millions and millions of them from slaughter).

The main purpose of making nice with China was to diplomatically isolate the North Vietnamese while simultaneously conducting operations against NVA logistical support in Laos and Cambodia to militarily isolate them in the South.

Increasing tension between China and the Soviet Union was a bonus.

Carter double whammied them -- made nice with Egypt, which garnered respect with the other OPEC members.

Egypt isn't a member of OPEC. Iran, on the other hand, is and Carter completely bungled that situation. The guts of OPEC is Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the other Gulf Emirates and they were always firmly under Western influence.

Still removing Egypt from the Soviet sphere of influence while building up Israeli power was a major step towards establishing a stable balance of power in a strategically vital region. I'll give him that.

At that point, their ship was sinking... enter Ronald Raygun.

Their ship had been sinking since the early 60's. This was was no state secret and was widely understood by the public at large. Remember the Soviet ambassador's complaint in Dr. Strangelove (1964):

There are those of us who fought against it, but in the end we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. And at the same time our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines. Our doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we'd been spending on defense in a single year. But the deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a doomsday gap.

Ramped "defense" (strong offense) up so quickly, things went in a tizzy. While ultimately a drop-in-the-bucket financially, every move Reagan made was another nail in the coffin in what was, under the surface, a very long-term, and ultimately successful propaganda war... and the USA won. It was mostly just a matter of showing their people how the Other Half lived.

Yeah. Reagan nailed the lid on the coffin.

[Dinsdale]

Iran, on the other hand, is and Carter completely bungled that situation.

One could make the case that Carter got stuck with the mess Churchill made.


Lots and lots and lots of blame to go around in regards to Iran/the Persian Corridor being so fucked up.


Did I ever mention that my Dad worked in Abadan You'll never guess for who) from ~1951-1953? Good times to be a western honkie in Abadan (who was smuggling in tariff-free goods on the side). Woke up one morning, and it was time to leave... immediately.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Ironically, following the fall of the Soviet Union, America adopted their worst traits (state control...incursions on privacy...central planning) and rejected the pluses (health care...education...)


Enjoy your pat-downs while you make your ruling class even richer, dullards.

[Dinsdale]

and rejected the pluses (health care...education...)

Huh?

You might wanna do some homework.

Early 90's was about the time when the Fed stuck their nose even farther into education (in OBVIOUS violation of the Constitution, but it's nothing more than toilet paper anymore), and produced a bunch more mandates to try and fix the health care problem that they caused with their original mandates.


So, what you said is almost accurate, except that it's the exact opposite of accurate, to a comedic level.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

...fix the health care problem...

America has never had a health care program because they've never had universal health care.

Freedom...to die like a dog in the street.

[Dinsdale]

America has never had a health care program because they've never had universal health care.

Quit while you're behind, since the ignorance is flowing like wine from your keyboard.

America never had a health care system because it never needed one.

BY FAR the cheapest, most efficient, technologically advanced health care in the world, BY FAR, 100 times over, the envy of the civilized world, and this is not even up for debate.


But, the federal power-grab decided that a couple of people here and there who didn't have access to the same coverage as some other people (which turned out to be pure fiction, in the name of silently repealing the 10th Amendment).

As a result, 37 years later, only the very wealthy can truly "afford" health care...


nice job "fixing" the problem. Alter the supply/demand curve with artificial factors, just to prove your Econ101 teacher wrong, or something, I guess was their motivation.

Wanna see the US healthcare system dominate like it did for 200 years? Repeal every last federal law (there's hundreds of them) that fucks up the supply/demand curve.


Basic. Fucking. Economics. The megaelephant in the room every time the subject comes up before the Power Mongers.


Last time I had a health issue that needed more than some home remedy (sup booze), I went to a clinic and paid cash... at a mere fraction of what it would have cost through insurance, and all the stupid paperwork that the feds mandated. See how that works?

A doctor/clinic offered a service, I compared their price to other similar businesses, and we made a financial arrangement.

But Uncle Sam (the New Hitler) wants to outlaw that, too.

[Moving Sale]

Last time I had a health issue that needed more than some home remedy (sup booze), I went to a clinic and paid cash... at a mere fraction of what it would have cost through insurance, and all the stupid paperwork that the feds mandated. See how that works?

It takes a special kind of stupid to fuck the fallacy fairy in the ass so badly. Do you try and write such inane shit just to give people something to respond to or are you really that dumb?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

A doctor/clinic offered a service, I compared their price to other similar businesses, and we made a financial arrangement.

What if you had no money?

What if the medical procedure cost more money than you had?

[Derron]

It takes a special kind to fuck the fairy in the ass so badly.

Ahh..finally you come with something you know a lot about..about fuckin time

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

It takes a special kind to fuck the fairy in the ass so badly.

Ahh..finally you come with something you know a lot about..about fuckin time

Dude, Moving Stale is a walking punchline...and you have to edit his quote for laughs?

You truly are the biggest shit-for-brains here.

[Moving Sale]

What if you had no money?

What if the medical procedure cost more money than you had?

STFU he's on a roll and your logic is about to get in the way of him making an even bigger ass of himself. No wait that's not possible carry on.

[mvscal]

Freedom...to die like a dog in the street.

Or not. Yes, that is the very essence of freedom. Freedom isn't some magical land of rainbow colored happiness. You are free to fall flat on your ass and die in the gutter. Just don't expect anybody to be there to help you out. If there is...well that's great. It's also that individual's choice and not society's obligation.

[Dr_Phibes]

The reason Gorbachev (and predecessors) changed up their economic policy is because they had to. It wasn't some random event.

That's what Gorbachev said, he called it a 'pre-crises situation', at the same time blaming Brezhnev and while the system wasn't doing well, it wasn't exactly in danger either. There was growth there, it wasn't spectacular, but it was still a better rate than the United States at the present time. Quality of life and stability were better than at any previous period of Soviet rule.

You can blame it on the stroke of a pen.

After the Russian Civil War, Lenin introduced the NEP (New Economic Policy), it legalised small business as a temporary measure, the country was shattered from war and the government wasn't in a position to function - a quick and easy way for people to fend for themselves and it worked fairly well.

Gorbachev envisioned this on a huge scale to stimulate growth, he allowed huge, money losing, state enterprises to go bankrupt, anticipating that some sort of 'tribal council' would magically spring up and take its place. Problem was, nothing happened as he over-ruled Party involvement when no other form of organisation existed.. other than The Party.
All these institutions just started to disappear and standard of living collapsed. He and his cadre panicked and decided that their reforms didn't go far enough, so they pushed on and made things worse. Without central leadership, major cities just started acting on their own and industry disintergrated.
He seemed to think that he could allow self-determination for Eastern Europe, but forbid it to the Baltic states. This was lunacy, unbelievable naivety, it meant that Gorbachev became increasingly isolated. The East Europeans were not grateful for Gorbachev 'giving' them their freedom, the Balts were enraged that he was sending troops and tanks into their cities, and the hardliners in Moscow were watching all this with mounting incredulity and horror.

The moral of the story is, The Soviet Union was run along military lines, you don't make an army more 'efficient' by democratising it. If you decide that a military organisation is not wanted, you should take care to plan out some civilian alternative before you tear it apart. There seems to be a similarity there with Obama's 'health plan' - in terms of depth of thought.

Carter - A non factor, his doctrine was based on a Soviet push south which was paranoia. He was chasing ghosts, the Soviets had no such aspiration.
When OPEC wasn't tryng to fuck the USSR, they were fucking you - another non-factor.

Nixon - The Sino/Soviet split happened after Stalin died, The Chinese and the USSR had nothing to say to each other, relations with the US didn't effect Russia.

Reagan - A myth, he spent more time engaging with, wheeling and dealing with the Soviets than anyone previous - his 'hard line' rep is a bullshit legacy.