Bank Failures Skyrocket
Tags: Financial Crisis.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
The news story:
U.S. bank regulators closed seven institutions on Thursday, including six banks in Illinois controlled by one family and a small bank in Dallas, bringing the total number of U.S. bank failures to 52 so far this year…
…The FDIC has faced a sharp uptick in failed banks as loan portfolios continue to deteriorate following the bursting of the housing bubble. In 2008 there were 25 bank failures, and just three in 2007.
That is a 201% increase from 2008 – and the year is only half over. Someone says there are “green shoots” in the economy? They are mistaken – what we’re really seeing is green mold on the body of a dead economy.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
16 Responses to “Bank Failures Skyrocket”
Caucus of Corruption
And it’s all Carter’s fault.
bozo,
No, its the fault of our usury-based, fiat-money-funded economy…Obama is just making it worse.
bozo clearly owns a mirror…………
The continuing worsening of the economy is an indictment of the foolish economic policies of the socialist agenda of Obaman and his cronies.
Wait a second didn’t you want Bank of America Citi and the “too big to fail” banks to go under? The best thing that can happen in the midst of a recession is to clear out the dead wood of non performing or insolvent insitutions.
Your demigod Ronald Reagan presided over the death of the thrifts by signing the Tax Reform Act of 1986 a deregulation measure which cost the American taxpayers 124 MMM USD by 1991. Do you recall how many S & L’s went under in that crisis??
markrocket
sorry
but cosmically can’t help myself
wasn’t that long ago
as the economy was circling the drain under bush
that you were touting it’s strength
just a radarian reminder
to snap you back to your own reality
:-))
have a nice holiday
this still is the greatest country to live on this planet
lead,
Oh, I do want them to fail or, more accurately, to be allowed to fail if that is what proves necessary. And your continuing ignorance is stunning – it was provisions inserted by House Democrats into the 1986 bill which caused the S&L crisis.
bagni,
Things have changed – the meltdown has taught lessons unlearned before.
Mark,
You want it both ways. You want these banks to fail but you want to blame Obama for their failure. Which is it?
Mark: nobody’s denying that the economy is bad. Few people deny that it will get worse before it gets better. Simply that Obama was handed a worsening crisis is no longer newsworthy. If you expect to be taken seriously, perhaps you should report actual news.
Cam: He wants the banks to fail IN ORDER THAT he can blame Obama.
wdc1,
The important question to all parties is: When is it feasible to start blaming this administration? When is it unfeasible to still blame their predecessors in the government?
Because surely if the predecessors can be perpetually blamed for the crisis, so too then they must be acknowledged perpetually for when it turns around.
It would appear hypocritical for one to lambast others for blaming Obama on the bad parts, yet for that same person to turn around and praise Obama for the good parts.
observer20,
“The important question to all parties is: When is it feasible to start blaming this administration? When is it unfeasible to still blame their predecessors in the government?”
Good question. I know people on this blog were blaming Clinton for things well into Bush’s second term. I guess part of the answer would depend on what what the issue is. With our recent escalation in Afghanistan, I’m thinking that we can now put the responsibility of how the war turns our on Obama’s shoulders. On the other hand, the draw down in Iraq was agreed to by the Bush administration and it’s ultimate success or failure falls back on him. The economy is a little different situation. It was going down the tubes when Obama took office and I doubt that anyone could have turned it around in six months. As pointed out by other posters, it took two years for Reagan to turn around the recession he inherited and from what I’ve read, it wasn’t near as bad as this one. It took over ten years to end the Great Depression and then it took the mother of all stimuluses, WW II to get everyone working again.
casper,
What I’m concerned with is that we cannot factor every variable into any of those situations. That is to say, if the economy doesn’t recover for awhile, people can say it was exacerbated by the government’s heavy spending and debt expansion. Or if it recovers quicker than expected, people can say it recovered despite Obama’s unhealthy spending because of some other factor that was beyond our control. Or people can blame Republican “obstructionism” or whatever. The same thing can be applied to military operations.
I suppose I’m merely pondering if the tendency of humans to imply causation with correlation in political matters is really correct, and how the general public comes to a consensus on ownership of results.
observer20,
And you are right. There is no way to tell 100% who is responsible for what. Frankly, I think the blame and/or success probably needs to be split in most cases. That said, there are certain situations that the credit can only go to one guy.. I truly believe that without Washington, we would not be the United States of America. Also, If it weren’t for Lincoln, it’s doubtful we would still be a single country. And while I (and most historians) believe that FDR was the one most responsible for getting us out of the the Great Depression, obviously there are those that disagree. I do think that the Iraq War will be credited to Bush regardless of the final outcome, because it was a war of choice, as was Bosnia.
Cam,
Where in this thread did I blame Obama for the crisis, itself?
Mark,
Are you saying you do not blame Obama for the crisis?
observer,
Reagan was given credit by those on the Right for any successes during his time in power. At the same time, Carter was blamed for the difficulties that Reagan encountered. I suspect that blame was extended to the point that any sort of economic turnaround happened. I know that in 1983 or about 2years into his term unemployment was at 10.5%. Reagan is now seen as nearly saintly by the Right.