yes, an entire net deficit over 8 years of around 400 billion.... obama is hoping that 2012 alone will only be slightly more than that.yep, this was clinton's brainchild. still doesn't excuse how GWB ran up the deficit though.
Have you seen the CBOs projections of this years deficit? Obama is nearly doubling it with potential to triple it.yep, this was clinton's brainchild. still doesn't excuse how GWB ran up the deficit though. i found it vaguely amusing that mccain was getting all huffy about the marine helicoptors equipped with kitchens, and called obama out on it, only to find it was a GWB idea... 28 helicoptors for what was it? 8 billion?
haven't seen it yet. this will be a frikken mess.Have you seen the CBOs projections of this years deficit? Obama is nearly doubling it with potential to triple it.
but now its in even more of a mess. say you have a credit card with 10k available balance. if you only spend 100 bucks on it, and pay it off every month, the banks will lower their liability, and cut that card limit down to 1k. now instead of having 99% available balance, you've jumped to 10% use on your card, which sends off red flags for lending, and will lower your credit score by 40 points if they do this to two of your cards !wait rugger, you have it all wrong. the whole problem was that the evil bankers wanted to make a profit by only lending money to people who would actually pay it back.
the banks dont actually do that though, as they want you to borrow more as you are a responsible credit risk.but now its in even more of a mess. say you have a credit card with 10k available balance. if you only spend 100 bucks on it, and pay it off every month, the banks will lower their liability, and cut that card limit down to 1k. now instead of having 99% available balance, you've jumped to 10% use on your card, which sends off red flags for lending, and will lower your credit score by 40 points if they do this to two of your cards !
the banks are now screwing themselves out of lending, messing up responsible people's credit score, and shows another stupid trend in the credit/banking world IMO.
it all goes off credit score though, so some of the responsible people are getting cut out of the loop, unless you have serious equity.the banks dont actually do that though, as they want you to borrow more as you are a responsible credit risk.
they are though. when they pull your cards history, they look at 99% available balance vs 90% available, and you're red flagged because your "spending" has increased, when that's not really the case. i have two friends who have lost 30 points off their credit scores from this happening - no increased spending whatsoever, just an adjustment on their cards maximum available.what i'm saying tho is that the banks wouldn't lower your credit limit in that scenario, they have no reason to
I would speculate that their adjustment of maximum available came from other things - either increased inquiries, balances or delinquencies on other cards, other new accounts open, etc, not because of non-use of that specific card. It is not in a financial institution's best interest to lower available credit on people who will actually pay it back. And I work in the financial industry And 99% available vs 90% available doesn't change your credit score. Its when you go to less than 30% available that it does IIRC, adjusted by your overall debt:income ratio.they are though. when they pull your cards history, they look at 99% available balance vs 90% available, and you're red flagged because your "spending" has increased, when that's not really the case. i have two friends who have lost 30 points off their credit scores from this happening - no increased spending whatsoever, just an adjustment on their cards maximum available.
i was using 99 and 90 to make it more simplistic, which in retrospect perhaps i shouldn't have. i'm surprised you haven't seen this trend though, since you're in the industry. its also being done with cards that people get, and place in their safe for an emergency - those are being adjusted/canceled as well.I would speculate that their adjustment of maximum available came from other things - either increased inquiries, balances or delinquencies on other cards, other new accounts open, etc, not because of non-use of that specific card. It is not in a financial institution's best interest to lower available credit on people who will actually pay it back. And I work in the financial industry And 99% available vs 90% available doesn't change your credit score. Its when you go to less than 30% available that it does IIRC, adjusted by your overall debt:income ratio.
again, I can't really see a bank lowering the credit limit on someone who is actually making payments, they are more inclined to lower limits on someone who is late (even if its on other banks's accounts) or has other credit issues. If you are making your payments they want you to have as much available as possible in the hopes you use it and continue to use it responsibly.a FICO score is determined:
35 percent Payment History: "Having a long history making of payments on time and no missed payments on all credit accounts is one of the most important items lenders look for."
30 percent Amount Owed: "This measures the amount you owe relative to the total amount of credit available. Someone closer to maxing out all their credit limits is deemed to be a higher risk of late payments in the future and this can lower their credit score."
15 percent Length of Credit History: "In general, a credit report containing a list of accounts opened for a long time will help your credit score. The score considers your oldest account and the average age of all accounts."
10 percent New Credit: "Opening several new credit accounts in a short period of time can lower your credit score. Also multiple credit report inquiries can represent a greater risk, but this does NOT include any requests made by you, an employer or by a lender who does so when sending you an unsolicited, "pre-approved" credit offer. Also, to compensate for rate shopping, the score counts multiple inquiries in any 14-day period as just one inquiry."
10 percent Types of Credit in Use: "Your mix of credit cards, retail accounts, finance company loans and mortgage loans is considered."
So they are adjusting lines for inactivity - that is people who never use the card at all. Or for other risk factors. But a card carrying a balance that they are making $ off of in interest they are not too likley to do anything about in the absence of other parts of your credit report changing."We are taking a more aggressive look at accounts to control risk given the current economic environment," said a spokeswoman for Bank of America Corp. "We are closing accounts with zero balances that have been inactive for more than a year and may adjust customers' credit lines up or down" based on "their risk profile and performance," she said.
A spokeswoman for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. said "we will lower credit lines for customers who are showing signs of increased risk or inactivity."
And American Express Co., US Bancorp, Washington Mutual Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co. said they would reduce cardholders' credit limits because of perceived customer risk, such as high balances or late payments on credit cards, according to a July credit card survey by Consumer Action, a consumer education and advocacy group.
that's the part that scared me. thanks for your input EZ.For example, if your balance was $2,500 on a $10,000 line of credit and was then slashed to $5,000, you have gone from using 25% of your credit limit to 50 "without spending an additional dime," she said.
While scores depend on individual situations, they often come down to how risky you appear to credit issuers. And the percentage of credit limit used could carry more weight in determining your FICO credit score when Fair Isaac's new rules are released in 2009, said Careen Foster, senior product manager at Fair Isaac Corp., creator of the FICO score.
how is forcing banks to write loans to unqualified people apolitical? All economies are based on never ending growth, I have yet to see a country say "our economy is big enough, no more growth next year". Considering populations go up each year, the economies NEED to be based on never ending growth or else the standard of living will go down year after year.The problem is apolitical,it had to come about sooner or later in an economy based on never ending growth.
how is forcing banks to write loans to unqualified people apolitical?
Growth merely delivers more of what we already have, but in larger quantities, with higher risks, costs, and complexity. Given this, shouldn't it at least be questioned and challenged?All economies are based on never ending growth, I have yet to see a country say "our economy is big enough, no more growth next year". Considering populations go up each year, the economies NEED to be based on never ending growth or else the standard of living will go down year after year.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Why did you start lifting? | General Chat | 13 | ||
Unanswered What age did you start anabolics? | Anabolics | 24 | ||
Unanswered What age did you start anabolics? | Anabolics | 1 | ||
What age did you start training?! | General Chat | 5 | ||
Did i start pct too soon? | Post Cycle Therapy | 14 |