How did this all start again?
- Thread starter Rugger
- Start date
Vtaper
Member
Good find Rugger! I believe the foreclosure epidemic is what kicked off our current economic downturn. Funny, all we ever heard though was that it was Bush' fault, not some well intentioned Liberal lending program from a decade ago that put people in bad loans.
Oh well, the stimulus package is also well intended so it will fix everything!
Especially the $400,000 to help stop bullying.
Oh well, the stimulus package is also well intended so it will fix everything!
Especially the $400,000 to help stop bullying.
suncloud
Well-known member
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?
EasyEJL
Never enough
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.
SilentBob187
Well-known member
Huzzah! Clinton started it. Bush didn't help, but Clinton started it.
Rugger
Well-known member
Have you seen the CBOs projections of this years deficit? Obama is nearly doubling it with potential to triple it.
suncloud
Well-known member
haven't seen it yet. this will be a frikken mess.
suncloud
Well-known member
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.
EasyEJL
Never enough
the banks dont actually do that though, as they want you to borrow more as you are a responsible credit risk.
suncloud
Well-known member
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.
suncloud
Well-known member
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.
granted, a credit card is entitled to do so, because it lowers their liability, which they're all trying to do, but to have their actions affect an individual is ludicrous. it defeats the whole purpose of building up your credit score in the first place.
it won't deny you a loan, but 30 points will kick you out of the "prime lending group" real quick.
EasyEJL
Never enough
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.
suncloud
Well-known member
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
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.
is your company not doing this?
EasyEJL
Never enough
Nope, not at all. I have a number of cards as well with no balance, and even over the last few months their credit lines have been either raised or flat.
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.
Dunno, it may have changed with some financial institutions over the last bit.
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.
Dunno, it may have changed with some financial institutions over the last bit.
EasyEJL
Never enough
well, it pretty much matches what I said
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.
Many people's credit lines are too high given their current credit risk. I know mine are
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.
Many people's credit lines are too high given their current credit risk. I know mine are
EasyEJL
Never enough
yeah, it definitely has the chance to make things worse in the short term, whats even worse in thinking about it is if the bump downwards in limit drops your credit score, and then due to a lower credit score it raises your rate as you are now in a new tier.
the plus to all of this is that maybe it teaches us not to rely so much on credit, and try to live credit minimal lifestyles other than mortgage. And not oh i dunno, have your annual spending be 2x your income like the federal government will be the next few years...
the plus to all of this is that maybe it teaches us not to rely so much on credit, and try to live credit minimal lifestyles other than mortgage. And not oh i dunno, have your annual spending be 2x your income like the federal government will be the next few years...
lutherblsstt
Guest
I think this explains it fairly well chrismartenson dot com watch the crash course for free. The problem is apolitical,it had to come about sooner or later in an economy based on never ending growth.
EasyEJL
Never enough
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.
BabyHulk
Active member
I won't mention the company, but I have been paying down a card, never late, never missed a payment, and I just had the limit lowered by several hundred bucks, bringing the ceiling down closer to my balance. This in turn, makes it where I am now almost maxed out again. This is insane indeed. I actually have good credit, and no I haven't used my card in a while, only because I try to do whats right. Pay it off and be responsible. Just my 2 cents.
lutherblsstt
Guest
This is just not a partisan issue.
I don't see this as a matter of “left vs. right”, but rather “right vs. wrong.”
I am absolutely an equal-opportunity caller of B.S. when I see it. I really don’t care what race, religion or political affiliation a person holds. I will analyze their proposals on the merits as I see them.
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?
Let me quote Albert Barlett who is a man I hold in very high esteem.
First, for his ability to speak in clear, concise language, which is the hallmark of someone who has mastered their material.
Second, because he sees the obvious and dares to point it out. Let me reframe that: He sees things that are incredibly obvious to others once he points them out. But because these things are most often "hidden in plain view," they are actually noticed by very few.
"It’s time to try again to correct the educationally credentialed but innumerate experts (innumeracy is the mathematical equivalent of illiteracy) who say that growth is inevitable. They fail to recognize that after maturity, continued growth is either obesity or cancer.
The arithmetic is clear. Steady growth produces impossibly large numbers in modest periods of time. SO GROWTH WILL STOP
The Legislature and all manner of public and private regional and local “civic groups” are promoting “economic development” which is the “politically correct” name for “growth.”
Predictably, this will produce more well-to-do people, more homeless people, more employed people, more unemployed people, higher average salaries, more people living below the poverty line, more traffic congestion, higher parking fees, more school crowding, more crime, more unhappy neighborhoods, more expensive government, more tax revenue, higher taxes, more fiscal problems for state and local governments, more tax limitation measures, more air and water pollution, higher utility costs, less reliable utility service, less democracy, more congestion pricing on busy city streets and crowded highways, more unmanageable costs of maintaining public infrastructures, higher food costs and more destruction of the environment.
It’s not clear why the Legislature would think that the people would want all of these known consequences of growth. However, innumeracy reigns. The promoters have demonstrated great skill in getting around minor obstacles such as “the will of the people.”
By their continued promotion of growth, the innumerates are speeding the arrival of painful but predictable shortages and consequent rationing of gasoline, natural gas and water in the Rocky Mountain area.
These shortages and the accompanying high prices will remake the urban landscape in ways that are probably not included in current “long-range” planning efforts of the City, County and State.
These problems can’t be solved by a nickel’s worth of “Smart Growth” tacked onto to billions of dollars worth of urban sprawl.
The arithmetic of population, resources and growth is inexorable. The consequences of the arithmetic can’t be avoided by believing that “Wishing will make it so.” (Walt Disney’s First Law)
Many years ago an innumerate graduate of the University of Colorado wrote to me, saying that he did not believe that this arithmetic holds in Boulder? What part of the arithmetic of growth is it that the innumerates don’t understand? "