Why can I not get a loan?

[Effective Demand]

[quote=CA renter]sdnerd:

Here is snipped from an article about the anti “buy and bail” requirement. It mentions that Freddie Mac requires the 30% equity, but I’ve heard other lenders are also requiring it.

Under the new Fannie Mae guidelines, in most cases, a borrower now must have at least 30 percent equity in his house to buy another. Otherwise, he cannot use the rent he says he will get to prove he can support two homes. The deterrence is that no one would want to walk away from a house in which he had a large amount of equity.

Also, the rental income the borrower claims now must be fully documented.

http://www.pe.com/business/local/stories/PE_News_Local_S_cheaters31.45b183a.html
[/quote]

Fannie & Freddie have the “buy n bail” rule, so does FHA. The OP needs to realize that if their goal is to get a bigger house they must first sell, then rent, while saving for a bigger down payment. Even if the OP had 20% down payment they would still get denied because their current residence doesn’t have enough equity in it.

[Daniel]

The “OP” topic (hehe, I’m internet literate now, too 🙂 has been wildly hijacked…

[quote=CA renter]

You’re implying that unionized workers are afraid to compete with other workers based on the merit of their skill or quality of product produced. That’s not the case at all. This is not a competition based on abilities, it’s a competition based only on wages. If you’re suggesting U.S. workers should embrace working for third-world wages, feel free to lead the way. You go first.
[/quote]

… so I’m gonna get into the fray on the new subject.

First, apologies to CA renter, with whom I often agree, but I feel compelled to take Dave’s side on this one. Dave is getting pretty lonely on this board, and that’s not fair (since his arguments are right most of the time 🙂

You see, CA renter, what you perceive as “third-world wages” may not be seen in Bangalore as such. Viewed from there, they’re very fairly paid, while American workers doing similar jobs are obscenely well paid. As Dave said, it depends on where you sit. I lived (for years) on both sides of the divide; I have to say that I think their point of view may be much closer to the truth than yours.

The fact is, an engineer in Bangalore often does a similar job to an engineer in San Diego for a lot less money (caveats and exceptions aside, I’m talking in very general terms, of course). As long as this is true, market forces will push one of two options: the job will leave San Diego for Bangalore, or the Indian engineer will come here on an H1-B visa. It’s either one or the other. Anything else (unionizing, trade restrictions, etc) is just pissing against the wind, for lack of a better metaphor.

[Daniel]

The “OP” topic (hehe, I’m internet literate now, too 🙂 has been wildly hijacked…

[quote=CA renter]

You’re implying that unionized workers are afraid to compete with other workers based on the merit of their skill or quality of product produced. That’s not the case at all. This is not a competition based on abilities, it’s a competition based only on wages. If you’re suggesting U.S. workers should embrace working for third-world wages, feel free to lead the way. You go first.
[/quote]

… so I’m gonna get into the fray on the new subject.

First, apologies to CA renter, with whom I often agree, but I feel compelled to take Dave’s side on this one. Dave is getting pretty lonely on this board, and that’s not fair (since his arguments are right most of the time 🙂

You see, CA renter, what you perceive as “third-world wages” may not be seen in Bangalore as such. Viewed from there, they’re very fairly paid, while American workers doing similar jobs are obscenely well paid. As Dave said, it depends on where you sit. I lived (for years) on both sides of the divide; I have to say that I think their point of view may be much closer to the truth than yours.

The fact is, an engineer in Bangalore often does a similar job to an engineer in San Diego for a lot less money (caveats and exceptions aside, I’m talking in very general terms, of course). As long as this is true, market forces will push one of two options: the job will leave San Diego for Bangalore, or the Indian engineer will come here on an H1-B visa. It’s either one or the other. Anything else (unionizing, trade restrictions, etc) is just pissing against the wind, for lack of a better metaphor.

[Daniel]

The “OP” topic (hehe, I’m internet literate now, too 🙂 has been wildly hijacked…

[quote=CA renter]

You’re implying that unionized workers are afraid to compete with other workers based on the merit of their skill or quality of product produced. That’s not the case at all. This is not a competition based on abilities, it’s a competition based only on wages. If you’re suggesting U.S. workers should embrace working for third-world wages, feel free to lead the way. You go first.
[/quote]

… so I’m gonna get into the fray on the new subject.

First, apologies to CA renter, with whom I often agree, but I feel compelled to take Dave’s side on this one. Dave is getting pretty lonely on this board, and that’s not fair (since his arguments are right most of the time 🙂

You see, CA renter, what you perceive as “third-world wages” may not be seen in Bangalore as such. Viewed from there, they’re very fairly paid, while American workers doing similar jobs are obscenely well paid. As Dave said, it depends on where you sit. I lived (for years) on both sides of the divide; I have to say that I think their point of view may be much closer to the truth than yours.

The fact is, an engineer in Bangalore often does a similar job to an engineer in San Diego for a lot less money (caveats and exceptions aside, I’m talking in very general terms, of course). As long as this is true, market forces will push one of two options: the job will leave San Diego for Bangalore, or the Indian engineer will come here on an H1-B visa. It’s either one or the other. Anything else (unionizing, trade restrictions, etc) is just pissing against the wind, for lack of a better metaphor.

[Daniel]

The “OP” topic (hehe, I’m internet literate now, too 🙂 has been wildly hijacked…

[quote=CA renter]

You’re implying that unionized workers are afraid to compete with other workers based on the merit of their skill or quality of product produced. That’s not the case at all. This is not a competition based on abilities, it’s a competition based only on wages. If you’re suggesting U.S. workers should embrace working for third-world wages, feel free to lead the way. You go first.
[/quote]

… so I’m gonna get into the fray on the new subject.

First, apologies to CA renter, with whom I often agree, but I feel compelled to take Dave’s side on this one. Dave is getting pretty lonely on this board, and that’s not fair (since his arguments are right most of the time 🙂

You see, CA renter, what you perceive as “third-world wages” may not be seen in Bangalore as such. Viewed from there, they’re very fairly paid, while American workers doing similar jobs are obscenely well paid. As Dave said, it depends on where you sit. I lived (for years) on both sides of the divide; I have to say that I think their point of view may be much closer to the truth than yours.

The fact is, an engineer in Bangalore often does a similar job to an engineer in San Diego for a lot less money (caveats and exceptions aside, I’m talking in very general terms, of course). As long as this is true, market forces will push one of two options: the job will leave San Diego for Bangalore, or the Indian engineer will come here on an H1-B visa. It’s either one or the other. Anything else (unionizing, trade restrictions, etc) is just pissing against the wind, for lack of a better metaphor.

[Daniel]

The “OP” topic (hehe, I’m internet literate now, too 🙂 has been wildly hijacked…

[quote=CA renter]

You’re implying that unionized workers are afraid to compete with other workers based on the merit of their skill or quality of product produced. That’s not the case at all. This is not a competition based on abilities, it’s a competition based only on wages. If you’re suggesting U.S. workers should embrace working for third-world wages, feel free to lead the way. You go first.
[/quote]

… so I’m gonna get into the fray on the new subject.

First, apologies to CA renter, with whom I often agree, but I feel compelled to take Dave’s side on this one. Dave is getting pretty lonely on this board, and that’s not fair (since his arguments are right most of the time 🙂

You see, CA renter, what you perceive as “third-world wages” may not be seen in Bangalore as such. Viewed from there, they’re very fairly paid, while American workers doing similar jobs are obscenely well paid. As Dave said, it depends on where you sit. I lived (for years) on both sides of the divide; I have to say that I think their point of view may be much closer to the truth than yours.

The fact is, an engineer in Bangalore often does a similar job to an engineer in San Diego for a lot less money (caveats and exceptions aside, I’m talking in very general terms, of course). As long as this is true, market forces will push one of two options: the job will leave San Diego for Bangalore, or the Indian engineer will come here on an H1-B visa. It’s either one or the other. Anything else (unionizing, trade restrictions, etc) is just pissing against the wind, for lack of a better metaphor.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]davelj wrote:

Umm… the value (presumably positive?) of the stock trading isn’t distributed to those who produced the goods because the latter group didn’t put any capital at risk, my friend. As soon as those who produce the goods put some capital at risk (and are thus willing to share in the losses), then we can have a rational discussion about what they “deserve” as owners. But until that time, it’s the old axiom: no risk, no reward (and recently, no huge losses). Again, c’mon.
——————

But, theoretically speaking, isn’t the price of the stock largely determined by dividend yield or expectation of capital gains?

Assuming the money used to pay dividends comes from profit, couldn’t one argue that some or all of that profit is really earned by those who produce what the profit is derived from?

Workers DO take on risk — the risk of losing their jobs if their company fails. Since most workers literally depend on their paychecks for survival, I’d say their risks are far greater than an investor’s, whose investment should only be a small portion of their portfolio, and should not be their main source of income.

And if risk is supposed to be commensurate with reward, how do you explain the taxpayers bailing out the uber-capitalists of the world? Shouldn’t they have ALL of their fraudulently-attained assets and future earnings seized so that they can compensate the taxpayers for all the losses they created?

[/quote]

The key word in your first paragraph is “expectation.” There is no guarantee. Therefore capital is at risk. Not so in the case of workers.

As far as the risk of losing one’s job is concerned, aren’t you putting the cart before the horse? Without first having the job itself, there’s no risk of losing it. And who provided the risk capital necessary to start the business that created the job? You know the answer. No one who’s ever started a business – and put their own capital at risk to do so – would ask these questions.

I’d say that 95%+ of “investors” don’t live off of their investments – they live off of their jobs and happen to have investments on the side. So they’re taking both job risk and capital risk. I don’t see a problem with this arrangement.

I’m not happy with the taxpayers bailing out the “uber-capitalists” either. I would have no problem with the govt. trying to recapture past payments to execs but for one slippery issue: the rule of law. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to take a couple of hundred million dollars from each and every one of these banking clowns, but the laws are fairly unambiguous where these things are concerned and I don’t know how you get around them (or change them) without creating a lot of havok.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]davelj wrote:

Umm… the value (presumably positive?) of the stock trading isn’t distributed to those who produced the goods because the latter group didn’t put any capital at risk, my friend. As soon as those who produce the goods put some capital at risk (and are thus willing to share in the losses), then we can have a rational discussion about what they “deserve” as owners. But until that time, it’s the old axiom: no risk, no reward (and recently, no huge losses). Again, c’mon.
——————

But, theoretically speaking, isn’t the price of the stock largely determined by dividend yield or expectation of capital gains?

Assuming the money used to pay dividends comes from profit, couldn’t one argue that some or all of that profit is really earned by those who produce what the profit is derived from?

Workers DO take on risk — the risk of losing their jobs if their company fails. Since most workers literally depend on their paychecks for survival, I’d say their risks are far greater than an investor’s, whose investment should only be a small portion of their portfolio, and should not be their main source of income.

And if risk is supposed to be commensurate with reward, how do you explain the taxpayers bailing out the uber-capitalists of the world? Shouldn’t they have ALL of their fraudulently-attained assets and future earnings seized so that they can compensate the taxpayers for all the losses they created?

[/quote]

The key word in your first paragraph is “expectation.” There is no guarantee. Therefore capital is at risk. Not so in the case of workers.

As far as the risk of losing one’s job is concerned, aren’t you putting the cart before the horse? Without first having the job itself, there’s no risk of losing it. And who provided the risk capital necessary to start the business that created the job? You know the answer. No one who’s ever started a business – and put their own capital at risk to do so – would ask these questions.

I’d say that 95%+ of “investors” don’t live off of their investments – they live off of their jobs and happen to have investments on the side. So they’re taking both job risk and capital risk. I don’t see a problem with this arrangement.

I’m not happy with the taxpayers bailing out the “uber-capitalists” either. I would have no problem with the govt. trying to recapture past payments to execs but for one slippery issue: the rule of law. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to take a couple of hundred million dollars from each and every one of these banking clowns, but the laws are fairly unambiguous where these things are concerned and I don’t know how you get around them (or change them) without creating a lot of havok.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]davelj wrote:

Umm… the value (presumably positive?) of the stock trading isn’t distributed to those who produced the goods because the latter group didn’t put any capital at risk, my friend. As soon as those who produce the goods put some capital at risk (and are thus willing to share in the losses), then we can have a rational discussion about what they “deserve” as owners. But until that time, it’s the old axiom: no risk, no reward (and recently, no huge losses). Again, c’mon.
——————

But, theoretically speaking, isn’t the price of the stock largely determined by dividend yield or expectation of capital gains?

Assuming the money used to pay dividends comes from profit, couldn’t one argue that some or all of that profit is really earned by those who produce what the profit is derived from?

Workers DO take on risk — the risk of losing their jobs if their company fails. Since most workers literally depend on their paychecks for survival, I’d say their risks are far greater than an investor’s, whose investment should only be a small portion of their portfolio, and should not be their main source of income.

And if risk is supposed to be commensurate with reward, how do you explain the taxpayers bailing out the uber-capitalists of the world? Shouldn’t they have ALL of their fraudulently-attained assets and future earnings seized so that they can compensate the taxpayers for all the losses they created?

[/quote]

The key word in your first paragraph is “expectation.” There is no guarantee. Therefore capital is at risk. Not so in the case of workers.

As far as the risk of losing one’s job is concerned, aren’t you putting the cart before the horse? Without first having the job itself, there’s no risk of losing it. And who provided the risk capital necessary to start the business that created the job? You know the answer. No one who’s ever started a business – and put their own capital at risk to do so – would ask these questions.

I’d say that 95%+ of “investors” don’t live off of their investments – they live off of their jobs and happen to have investments on the side. So they’re taking both job risk and capital risk. I don’t see a problem with this arrangement.

I’m not happy with the taxpayers bailing out the “uber-capitalists” either. I would have no problem with the govt. trying to recapture past payments to execs but for one slippery issue: the rule of law. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to take a couple of hundred million dollars from each and every one of these banking clowns, but the laws are fairly unambiguous where these things are concerned and I don’t know how you get around them (or change them) without creating a lot of havok.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]davelj wrote:

Umm… the value (presumably positive?) of the stock trading isn’t distributed to those who produced the goods because the latter group didn’t put any capital at risk, my friend. As soon as those who produce the goods put some capital at risk (and are thus willing to share in the losses), then we can have a rational discussion about what they “deserve” as owners. But until that time, it’s the old axiom: no risk, no reward (and recently, no huge losses). Again, c’mon.
——————

But, theoretically speaking, isn’t the price of the stock largely determined by dividend yield or expectation of capital gains?

Assuming the money used to pay dividends comes from profit, couldn’t one argue that some or all of that profit is really earned by those who produce what the profit is derived from?

Workers DO take on risk — the risk of losing their jobs if their company fails. Since most workers literally depend on their paychecks for survival, I’d say their risks are far greater than an investor’s, whose investment should only be a small portion of their portfolio, and should not be their main source of income.

And if risk is supposed to be commensurate with reward, how do you explain the taxpayers bailing out the uber-capitalists of the world? Shouldn’t they have ALL of their fraudulently-attained assets and future earnings seized so that they can compensate the taxpayers for all the losses they created?

[/quote]

The key word in your first paragraph is “expectation.” There is no guarantee. Therefore capital is at risk. Not so in the case of workers.

As far as the risk of losing one’s job is concerned, aren’t you putting the cart before the horse? Without first having the job itself, there’s no risk of losing it. And who provided the risk capital necessary to start the business that created the job? You know the answer. No one who’s ever started a business – and put their own capital at risk to do so – would ask these questions.

I’d say that 95%+ of “investors” don’t live off of their investments – they live off of their jobs and happen to have investments on the side. So they’re taking both job risk and capital risk. I don’t see a problem with this arrangement.

I’m not happy with the taxpayers bailing out the “uber-capitalists” either. I would have no problem with the govt. trying to recapture past payments to execs but for one slippery issue: the rule of law. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to take a couple of hundred million dollars from each and every one of these banking clowns, but the laws are fairly unambiguous where these things are concerned and I don’t know how you get around them (or change them) without creating a lot of havok.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]davelj wrote:

Umm… the value (presumably positive?) of the stock trading isn’t distributed to those who produced the goods because the latter group didn’t put any capital at risk, my friend. As soon as those who produce the goods put some capital at risk (and are thus willing to share in the losses), then we can have a rational discussion about what they “deserve” as owners. But until that time, it’s the old axiom: no risk, no reward (and recently, no huge losses). Again, c’mon.
——————

But, theoretically speaking, isn’t the price of the stock largely determined by dividend yield or expectation of capital gains?

Assuming the money used to pay dividends comes from profit, couldn’t one argue that some or all of that profit is really earned by those who produce what the profit is derived from?

Workers DO take on risk — the risk of losing their jobs if their company fails. Since most workers literally depend on their paychecks for survival, I’d say their risks are far greater than an investor’s, whose investment should only be a small portion of their portfolio, and should not be their main source of income.

And if risk is supposed to be commensurate with reward, how do you explain the taxpayers bailing out the uber-capitalists of the world? Shouldn’t they have ALL of their fraudulently-attained assets and future earnings seized so that they can compensate the taxpayers for all the losses they created?

[/quote]

The key word in your first paragraph is “expectation.” There is no guarantee. Therefore capital is at risk. Not so in the case of workers.

As far as the risk of losing one’s job is concerned, aren’t you putting the cart before the horse? Without first having the job itself, there’s no risk of losing it. And who provided the risk capital necessary to start the business that created the job? You know the answer. No one who’s ever started a business – and put their own capital at risk to do so – would ask these questions.

I’d say that 95%+ of “investors” don’t live off of their investments – they live off of their jobs and happen to have investments on the side. So they’re taking both job risk and capital risk. I don’t see a problem with this arrangement.

I’m not happy with the taxpayers bailing out the “uber-capitalists” either. I would have no problem with the govt. trying to recapture past payments to execs but for one slippery issue: the rule of law. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to take a couple of hundred million dollars from each and every one of these banking clowns, but the laws are fairly unambiguous where these things are concerned and I don’t know how you get around them (or change them) without creating a lot of havok.

[equalizer]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Paramount: Amen to that, and well said. Your comments got me to thinking about the interviews with the parents of the Columbine shooters. All were upwardly mobile and upper-middle class and, in each and every instance, both parents worked. Not because they needed to, but because they wanted the BMW and the nice house and all the trappings of “success”.

Problem is, they spent no time with their kids and failed to recognize (in one instance) that their son was building bombs in the basement! How the f**k do you miss that?

These kids were ignored by their parents, who were so completely consumed by the consumer culture that they failed to notice what was happening in their own homes.

Screw the lifestyle. Your family is always more important. And I think, societally speaking, that we’re about to discover that again. Along with our values.[/quote]
Allan,

If the other parents line up in front of school with their shiny Beemers, you want Piggs to show up in a minivan?? That is pure child abuse, trauma for life. The kid could end up sky jumping with Marines.

Many moons ago I was with group of Marines who got me to jump at 13,000ft, but then they upped the ante and wanted me to cliff jump into a pond on north coast of oahu. Just as well I balked as owner chased us out due to Five 0 on his tail for allowing kids getting hurt in said pond. Damn, I got kicked out of boot camp in 2 hrs! Makes no sense, I walked home from school in Chicago, in blinding snowstorm across the frozen tundra. Chilly 65 degrees can turn anyone into a wuss.

[equalizer]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Paramount: Amen to that, and well said. Your comments got me to thinking about the interviews with the parents of the Columbine shooters. All were upwardly mobile and upper-middle class and, in each and every instance, both parents worked. Not because they needed to, but because they wanted the BMW and the nice house and all the trappings of “success”.

Problem is, they spent no time with their kids and failed to recognize (in one instance) that their son was building bombs in the basement! How the f**k do you miss that?

These kids were ignored by their parents, who were so completely consumed by the consumer culture that they failed to notice what was happening in their own homes.

Screw the lifestyle. Your family is always more important. And I think, societally speaking, that we’re about to discover that again. Along with our values.[/quote]
Allan,

If the other parents line up in front of school with their shiny Beemers, you want Piggs to show up in a minivan?? That is pure child abuse, trauma for life. The kid could end up sky jumping with Marines.

Many moons ago I was with group of Marines who got me to jump at 13,000ft, but then they upped the ante and wanted me to cliff jump into a pond on north coast of oahu. Just as well I balked as owner chased us out due to Five 0 on his tail for allowing kids getting hurt in said pond. Damn, I got kicked out of boot camp in 2 hrs! Makes no sense, I walked home from school in Chicago, in blinding snowstorm across the frozen tundra. Chilly 65 degrees can turn anyone into a wuss.

[equalizer]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Paramount: Amen to that, and well said. Your comments got me to thinking about the interviews with the parents of the Columbine shooters. All were upwardly mobile and upper-middle class and, in each and every instance, both parents worked. Not because they needed to, but because they wanted the BMW and the nice house and all the trappings of “success”.

Problem is, they spent no time with their kids and failed to recognize (in one instance) that their son was building bombs in the basement! How the f**k do you miss that?

These kids were ignored by their parents, who were so completely consumed by the consumer culture that they failed to notice what was happening in their own homes.

Screw the lifestyle. Your family is always more important. And I think, societally speaking, that we’re about to discover that again. Along with our values.[/quote]
Allan,

If the other parents line up in front of school with their shiny Beemers, you want Piggs to show up in a minivan?? That is pure child abuse, trauma for life. The kid could end up sky jumping with Marines.

Many moons ago I was with group of Marines who got me to jump at 13,000ft, but then they upped the ante and wanted me to cliff jump into a pond on north coast of oahu. Just as well I balked as owner chased us out due to Five 0 on his tail for allowing kids getting hurt in said pond. Damn, I got kicked out of boot camp in 2 hrs! Makes no sense, I walked home from school in Chicago, in blinding snowstorm across the frozen tundra. Chilly 65 degrees can turn anyone into a wuss.

[equalizer]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Paramount: Amen to that, and well said. Your comments got me to thinking about the interviews with the parents of the Columbine shooters. All were upwardly mobile and upper-middle class and, in each and every instance, both parents worked. Not because they needed to, but because they wanted the BMW and the nice house and all the trappings of “success”.

Problem is, they spent no time with their kids and failed to recognize (in one instance) that their son was building bombs in the basement! How the f**k do you miss that?

These kids were ignored by their parents, who were so completely consumed by the consumer culture that they failed to notice what was happening in their own homes.

Screw the lifestyle. Your family is always more important. And I think, societally speaking, that we’re about to discover that again. Along with our values.[/quote]
Allan,

If the other parents line up in front of school with their shiny Beemers, you want Piggs to show up in a minivan?? That is pure child abuse, trauma for life. The kid could end up sky jumping with Marines.

Many moons ago I was with group of Marines who got me to jump at 13,000ft, but then they upped the ante and wanted me to cliff jump into a pond on north coast of oahu. Just as well I balked as owner chased us out due to Five 0 on his tail for allowing kids getting hurt in said pond. Damn, I got kicked out of boot camp in 2 hrs! Makes no sense, I walked home from school in Chicago, in blinding snowstorm across the frozen tundra. Chilly 65 degrees can turn anyone into a wuss.

[Author]

Posts