The Graying o0f Americas Bankruptcy filers.

If people who are given a lot of help from their families refuse to credit the help they got in whatever success they have, then yeah, I'm with you.

The rest of that, I dunno. I don't know people who "irrationally big themselves up". If my kids tried to say that their success is only due to their hard work, I'd give them a bill for what it cost to raise them.

 

In the US, medical expenses are the principle cause of personal bankruptcy filings.

Fewer Americans being adequately covered will mean that younger demographics will also participate in the upsurge of family insolvency.

 

wow, lot of people would like to buy a house for $3000.00

most houses here are over $1000.00 a month just for rent

or were you referring to your parents paying 3000.00 a month rent?

 

You must have spent a fair amount of time typing out all of this text. Chile, Buchanon, and a Koch funded charade? Unfortunately, this all constitutes what is accurately called a non sequitur. Would you like to address what was actually being discussed? If you would like to jump in on the actual topic, I will be more than happy to respond.

 

They can keep their house ONLY if they own it free and clear. Yes, the reverse mortgage is a useful option if they have no children to pass it down to.

 

It's all factually based and well documented. You can try to ignore it all you like but I will not sit idly while the nihilistic right wing of America works to engender genocide at the behest of a few right corporate donors, and especially not that ****ing cuck Charles Koch.

 

It was in the 60s. Housing was much more affordable before the government expanded its meddling in the mortgage markets to the degree that led to 2008 over several decades. My current 3500 sq ft house was built in the 70s for $45,000, lot and all. The point was that I didn't grow up advantaged.

Affordable housing exists in nice mid sized and smaller communities across the country today. If someone chooses to live where housing is unaffordable, they have no one but themselves to blame. My last house before this one was 2400 sq ft, large fenced backyard, 4 miles from a main interstate, and cost $90,000 pre 2008. It was sold for $70,000 during the crash. Telecommuting and technology generally have allowed many people to live outside cities and not be subject to extreme commutes. If they don't, and insist on living in expensive cities, that's on them.

 

The thread was about bankruptcy. Generally that doesn't affect soc sec benfits or being able to stay in your house ... assuming you're not defaulting on the mortgage.

 

Many states do not allow home equity to be protected during Chapter 7 liquidation, which is what most people think of as bankruptcy as opposed to Chapter 13 personal reorg. I've already posted the most likely rationale for increasing senior bankruptcies, and it's not as OP suggests in the typical union label lie narrative on wealth resentment.

Other possible causes in addition to estate planning and Medicaid qualification include longer lifespans and people running out of money due to outliving their savings. Now if the union label wants to argue that longer lifespans are somehow bad, and are a scheme of the wealthy at senior expense, let them make that asinine argument.

As usual, this is a complex issue with many facets. Simply stating "increasing senior bankruptcy = caused by the rich" is typical LW lie narrative hoodoo, to be discarded out of hand as the resentment propaganda that it is.

 

if your family owned a home, you did grow up more advantaged then some - the point is, some have more opportunities then others, my children have more opportunities then I did as an example, some have better mental and physical health then others (I think some of this is due to the low fat movement and the HFCS and sugar replacing fat in the American diet)


that did not happen in 2008, it finished in 2008, what ruined housing was corporate greed with the banks and republicans removing regulations to allow it to happen, these rule changes were bought and paid for by the rich

"Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble"

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html

"In the 2004 election cycle, mortgage bankers and brokers poured nearly $847,000 into Bush's re-election campaign, more than triple their contributions in 2000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The administration did not complete the new rules until last month."

Dirty Don's tax cuts for the mega corps will come back to haunt us too

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html

"“We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002 "

when the right says they are gonna help the people, it usually means help the rich and that they expect it to trickle down, and if it did trickle down they woudl be right, that just never seems to happen

 

You couldn't be more wrong. Most of the "too big to fail" banking mergers took place during the Clinton Administration, and surprise surprise, they went around with brown bags after leaving office, collected $150 million in "speaking fees" from the exact same banks they ignored the antitrust laws for. This topic has been done to death, if you want facts instead of MSM Complex spin, start a thread. You are out of your depth.

 

you could not be more wrong, this was pushed by Republicans, and it came to a end in 2008, at which time Bush bailed out the banks again

 

I don't think we've seen anything yet when it comes to this.

I've been expecting a trend like this to emerge for some time. There has been little doubt in many people's minds that the baby boom will be the first generation in US history to retire worse off than their parents.

This has a lot to do with then embracing the ideology of easy promises and individual greed that is the core of right wing economic arguments.

Ronald Reagans' tax cuts left working America with a smaller piece of the economic pie than they had before.

So, they voted for it again in 2000. Bush offered a sweetener in the form of a one time check, which for most people amounted to less than $500, which is just about all the working class got out of the Bush tax cuts. By the time that boom collapsed, income inequality in the US was worse that it had been before the 1929 crash.

So, the GOP and Trump are running the same play again.

You could practically see the CEO's in Steve Mnuchin's imfamous town hall meeting licking their chops and counting their bonuses from stock buy backs, which is where almost all of Trump's tax cut has gone so far, just as its critics predicted.

 

The notion of privatizing Social Security is rooted on Wall Street's long term desire to get possession of all that capital.

We have the history of 401K's now to tell us what happens when we assume that ordinary people living paycheck to paycheck are left to make their own investment decision, (or to choose between paying for back to school supplies, weddings, college tuition, insurance deductibles, etc, and putting money into the 401K.

This report is the tip of an iceberg that will run in the background of the US economy until people wake up and realize that the New Deal worked. and Reaganomics didn't, for most people.

 

More utterly unsubstantiated public union label resentment garbage. The American middle class is better off than it ever has been in history in terms of real wealth including the many boons of capitalist innovation enjoyed by ALL income levels. Or maybe you'd lead the way into the time machine back to the sixties-70s. What would your life look like then during the public union golden age? What would your phone, computer, TV, car, healthcare, medicine, food choices, clothing expense look like? Oh, and don't forget to leave 5-10 years of extra lifespan at the time machine door. You wouldn't even begin to take that trip, don't bother lying and saying you would.

Seniors living longer than their savings is a mixed bag, a social problem, but not due to anyone's greed... or maybe they want to get euthanized at 80? That's where LW politics always ends up after all, mass murder and starvation. Trying to project that onto more just regimes is old hat.

Most of this thread topic, to restate, is about vagaries of estate planning used to qualify for welfare in elder years. Note that these topics rarely if ever come up during Democrat Administrations. It's the old, rotten "seniors eating dog food" LIE in new clothes. Nobody's buying, find some new rot to try to divide people with. Disgusting.

 

Sure, you can save bigly out of your Social Security check!!!!!

 

Yeah I thought of reasons bankruptcy could be a rational choice.

But imo given the demise of pensions, the flattening of wages from 75-2015 and the lack of private savings, I'll buy there's a correlation between seniors bankruptcy and lack of money. I'm not going socialist over it though, and I'd be more interested to see studies showing if hunger, homelessness and lack of medication is increasing.

 

No one that I've ever heard mention the privatization of SS has thought FICA should be optional. People are lazy, people are stupid, and worse yet incredibly short sighted.

Saving for your own retirement should therefore be compulsory.

Beyond the circumstances of my birth, luck had **** all to do with it. I was raised in a family with values. My entire *******n life all I've ever known is work and austerity.

While dating my current wife, on her first birthday after we were together(after about a year of dating) I got her nothing, because I had never gotten a birthday or Christmas gift. 5 years later I still find the entire concept incredibly odd.

You see my father had values-like my mother never having to work and providing for my disabled little brother after our parents were gone-and as a result my father had to stick to a budget.

Birthdays and Christmas were never in it

 

I was obviously referring to those who have yet to retire.

 

If we continue in the same direction as we are going retirement will become a thing of the past.And despite all claims by the administration to the contrary we had MORE PEOPLE WORKING IN 2000 than we have working today.Just take a peek at the online National Debt Clock real time which shows comparisons between today and the year 2000.

 

Retirement as a thing of the past is the intended result. Just think about how much more productive society could be and how much more profit could be made if people wouldn't exit the rat race at 65 but stay on it and spend spend spend until they die? Plus, all the savings in SS that could be had -- more potential for tax cuts for the rich.

 

Do you really think the people advocating for privatization of SS will give their REAL reasons for the push? No, they will sugar coat it in slogans like "you too could be a millionaire, if only we could handle your money instead of the dreaded government".

 

I am sorry about you disabled brother, but I also feel sorry for your wife. There is a difference between being financially responsible and being a miser.

In any case, I don't know anything about you except for what you write in your posts. From what I can tell, you are a perfect example of a life being shaped by the circumstances rather than free will. You see, your tendency to save at all cost has nothing to do with your awesomeness, but rather with the circumstances under which you grew up. Just like many who lived through the great depression eventually turned into savers and hoarders.

I am saying this being a saver myself, but probably not as extreme as you are.

 

Whether it is "factually based and well documented" is irrelevant. You are arguing against points that were never raised.

Literally, the sum total of what I said was ….

"I dont know "that" to be the case even remotely. It is however, a nice attempt at scare mongering that would no doubt frighten a fair amount of people. If people wanted to come up with a way for that to work, it is easily possible, and we as the recipients of our forced savings, would end up with far more money than the current arrangement."

….from this scant bit of information you assert that I need to look at Chile. Of course I said nor implied not one thing about trying to emulate Chile. What I actually said was if people wanted to find a way for it to work, it is easily possible.

….from this scant bit of information you assert that my premise is a Koch funded batch of drivel. Of course I said not one thing that would indicate that I am supporting a Koch initiative. What I actually said was if people wanted to find a way for it to work, it is easily possible. The notion of a partially privatized Social Security System pre dates the Koch Brothers being a known commodity in politics by several decades. The notion of a partially privatized Social Security System will also far outlive the Koch Brothers. I realize that the Koch Brothers are a favorite boogeyman for the left, but the mere fact that you are desperately trying to turn this into a Koch Brothers thing only further serves to bolster my point about scare mongering. That is precisely what you are doing. You arent arguing against the merits or lack thereof, you are arguing against your favorite boogeyman. The reality that your favorite boogeyman had nothing to do with my words be damned.

My words were short and straight forward. I wasnt pushing anyone in particular's political agenda. I was merely pushing the notion that the future value of money with even a modest risk investment strategy is FAR greater than what recipients end up taking out of the system. Your reflexive boiler plate arguments against the Koch Brothers stand as a testament to my original premise which is that the left only opts to scare monger rather than having legitimate policy discussions.

 

what ever makes you feel better, I never said you did not work hard, your lucky you were born with a strong body and mind, social circumstances plays a role, most know that, doesn't mean you did not do what was needed to take advantage of the opportunities society provided to you, the sad thing is the families that do not have those opportunities because they were abused by a family member, a family preacher or whatever and it missed up their minds, or were born with health issues, ect...

you may feel there was nothing lucky in your life, others with a life not as lucky may disagree

sure Trump thinks he hit a triple even though he was born on third base, Trump thinks he did is all on his own....

will you be signing up for SS an Medicare, did your disabled brother? I think these are good programs