Why can I not get a loan?

[equalizer]

[quote=tssd888]I have read this site and board for a long time but never registered to comment until now….

I am SHOCKED at some of the comments in this thread from people that make assumptions and attacks claiming to know all about the OP.

It obviously stems from a mix of jealously and bitterness at their own situations. Take the good comments and info and do your best to ignore the others. They serve little purpose in your life, leave them alone to wallow in their own misery.[/quote]

Really? sdude and xbox are some pretty mean dudes, but their posts in this thread are just about the most useful notes they (or anyone) have (has) ever written and I have been here 2.5 years.

That jealousy and bitterness is so 2005, long gone. Most people here already own a house or 4(plex). Don’t confuse sage advise with bitterness.

ncounty4,

So many posts, has anyone asked if it is possible to rent out that house for now and move your family into a rental unit in your favorite town?
Rental wont pay all bills now, but that may be best bet for now. good luck

[CA renter]

davelj wrote:

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.
—————-

Dave,

We are talking about two entirely different classes here.

When I refer to “rich” or “wealthy” people, I am not talking about the small business owner who invests his life’s savings and dilligently works to create a new company or product…and benefits from his/her efforts.

If an owner wants to establish a sole proprietorship, I couldn’t care less what he/she earned or what the disparity was between his income and the income of the rest of the employees. If the owner is solely and personally responsible for the losses, and if that owner truly puts **his own** (not borrowed, not other investor’s) money on the table, he deserves all the reward. No disagreement there at all.

Where we disagree is that I believe most truly “rich” people do NOT put their own money at risk, and they are NOT the people who create and build bussinesses. They are the parasites (executives, investors, etc.) who either buy or come into an existing **corporation** that sheilds them from personal responsibility, and proceed to direct all the profits into their own pockets, leaving an empty shell of a once-great company behind. They do nothing to benefit society at large, and collude with other like-minded people who keep close watch over the “circle of winners” and their money flows. These are the “capitalists” I rail against, and I have yet to see a convincing argument that would convince me that they are in any way beneficial or useful to society.

If you look at companies run by entrepreneurs versus the “corporatists,” you’ll see that the people who created the businesses do not make many, many multiples more than most of their employees. For the most part, you only see this behavior in the large corporations where the risk of the company’s failing does not severely, adversely affect the executives (they are not emotionally attached to the company because they didn’t start and grow it, and/or they are protected by laws of incorporation from any liability if the company fails).

I think it’s important for us as a society to rethink what we are trying to reward, and how we go about doing it.

[CA renter]

davelj wrote:

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.
—————-

Dave,

We are talking about two entirely different classes here.

When I refer to “rich” or “wealthy” people, I am not talking about the small business owner who invests his life’s savings and dilligently works to create a new company or product…and benefits from his/her efforts.

If an owner wants to establish a sole proprietorship, I couldn’t care less what he/she earned or what the disparity was between his income and the income of the rest of the employees. If the owner is solely and personally responsible for the losses, and if that owner truly puts **his own** (not borrowed, not other investor’s) money on the table, he deserves all the reward. No disagreement there at all.

Where we disagree is that I believe most truly “rich” people do NOT put their own money at risk, and they are NOT the people who create and build bussinesses. They are the parasites (executives, investors, etc.) who either buy or come into an existing **corporation** that sheilds them from personal responsibility, and proceed to direct all the profits into their own pockets, leaving an empty shell of a once-great company behind. They do nothing to benefit society at large, and collude with other like-minded people who keep close watch over the “circle of winners” and their money flows. These are the “capitalists” I rail against, and I have yet to see a convincing argument that would convince me that they are in any way beneficial or useful to society.

If you look at companies run by entrepreneurs versus the “corporatists,” you’ll see that the people who created the businesses do not make many, many multiples more than most of their employees. For the most part, you only see this behavior in the large corporations where the risk of the company’s failing does not severely, adversely affect the executives (they are not emotionally attached to the company because they didn’t start and grow it, and/or they are protected by laws of incorporation from any liability if the company fails).

I think it’s important for us as a society to rethink what we are trying to reward, and how we go about doing it.

[CA renter]

davelj wrote:

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.
—————-

Dave,

We are talking about two entirely different classes here.

When I refer to “rich” or “wealthy” people, I am not talking about the small business owner who invests his life’s savings and dilligently works to create a new company or product…and benefits from his/her efforts.

If an owner wants to establish a sole proprietorship, I couldn’t care less what he/she earned or what the disparity was between his income and the income of the rest of the employees. If the owner is solely and personally responsible for the losses, and if that owner truly puts **his own** (not borrowed, not other investor’s) money on the table, he deserves all the reward. No disagreement there at all.

Where we disagree is that I believe most truly “rich” people do NOT put their own money at risk, and they are NOT the people who create and build bussinesses. They are the parasites (executives, investors, etc.) who either buy or come into an existing **corporation** that sheilds them from personal responsibility, and proceed to direct all the profits into their own pockets, leaving an empty shell of a once-great company behind. They do nothing to benefit society at large, and collude with other like-minded people who keep close watch over the “circle of winners” and their money flows. These are the “capitalists” I rail against, and I have yet to see a convincing argument that would convince me that they are in any way beneficial or useful to society.

If you look at companies run by entrepreneurs versus the “corporatists,” you’ll see that the people who created the businesses do not make many, many multiples more than most of their employees. For the most part, you only see this behavior in the large corporations where the risk of the company’s failing does not severely, adversely affect the executives (they are not emotionally attached to the company because they didn’t start and grow it, and/or they are protected by laws of incorporation from any liability if the company fails).

I think it’s important for us as a society to rethink what we are trying to reward, and how we go about doing it.

[CA renter]

davelj wrote:

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.
—————-

Dave,

We are talking about two entirely different classes here.

When I refer to “rich” or “wealthy” people, I am not talking about the small business owner who invests his life’s savings and dilligently works to create a new company or product…and benefits from his/her efforts.

If an owner wants to establish a sole proprietorship, I couldn’t care less what he/she earned or what the disparity was between his income and the income of the rest of the employees. If the owner is solely and personally responsible for the losses, and if that owner truly puts **his own** (not borrowed, not other investor’s) money on the table, he deserves all the reward. No disagreement there at all.

Where we disagree is that I believe most truly “rich” people do NOT put their own money at risk, and they are NOT the people who create and build bussinesses. They are the parasites (executives, investors, etc.) who either buy or come into an existing **corporation** that sheilds them from personal responsibility, and proceed to direct all the profits into their own pockets, leaving an empty shell of a once-great company behind. They do nothing to benefit society at large, and collude with other like-minded people who keep close watch over the “circle of winners” and their money flows. These are the “capitalists” I rail against, and I have yet to see a convincing argument that would convince me that they are in any way beneficial or useful to society.

If you look at companies run by entrepreneurs versus the “corporatists,” you’ll see that the people who created the businesses do not make many, many multiples more than most of their employees. For the most part, you only see this behavior in the large corporations where the risk of the company’s failing does not severely, adversely affect the executives (they are not emotionally attached to the company because they didn’t start and grow it, and/or they are protected by laws of incorporation from any liability if the company fails).

I think it’s important for us as a society to rethink what we are trying to reward, and how we go about doing it.

[CA renter]

davelj wrote:

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.
—————-

Dave,

We are talking about two entirely different classes here.

When I refer to “rich” or “wealthy” people, I am not talking about the small business owner who invests his life’s savings and dilligently works to create a new company or product…and benefits from his/her efforts.

If an owner wants to establish a sole proprietorship, I couldn’t care less what he/she earned or what the disparity was between his income and the income of the rest of the employees. If the owner is solely and personally responsible for the losses, and if that owner truly puts **his own** (not borrowed, not other investor’s) money on the table, he deserves all the reward. No disagreement there at all.

Where we disagree is that I believe most truly “rich” people do NOT put their own money at risk, and they are NOT the people who create and build bussinesses. They are the parasites (executives, investors, etc.) who either buy or come into an existing **corporation** that sheilds them from personal responsibility, and proceed to direct all the profits into their own pockets, leaving an empty shell of a once-great company behind. They do nothing to benefit society at large, and collude with other like-minded people who keep close watch over the “circle of winners” and their money flows. These are the “capitalists” I rail against, and I have yet to see a convincing argument that would convince me that they are in any way beneficial or useful to society.

If you look at companies run by entrepreneurs versus the “corporatists,” you’ll see that the people who created the businesses do not make many, many multiples more than most of their employees. For the most part, you only see this behavior in the large corporations where the risk of the company’s failing does not severely, adversely affect the executives (they are not emotionally attached to the company because they didn’t start and grow it, and/or they are protected by laws of incorporation from any liability if the company fails).

I think it’s important for us as a society to rethink what we are trying to reward, and how we go about doing it.

[equalizer]

[quote=CA renter]paramount wrote:

And another thing: a good house is one that keeps you and your family safe and warm and is a roof over your head.

If you don’t have 10% down on a 700k house, buy a cheaper house where your down payment is equal to 20%. Or would that house not be good enough for you?

I hear you, paramount, but one of the biggest problems with So Cal is the huge disparity in wealth and income. Back when I was growing up in L.A. during the 70s and 80s, middle-class neighborhoods were the norm. Let me define what I call “middle class”: **safe**, clean neighborhoods where the homes and yards were well-maintained, neighbors watched out for each other, usually one parent stayed home and the other worked in in jobs ranging from mechanic to engineering. The homes would range from 1,300sf to ~2,000sf, and had tile or Formica countertops and regular carpet (no marble floors for us regular folks!).

These days, those neighborhoods are in the minority. You either buy in “the hood” with SFHs filled with multiple families, gang members hanging around in driveways and on street corners, staring people down and making it VERY uncomfortable to let your kids play in the front yard or walk down the street, dirt yards filled with cars, etc…

…OR you’re forced to buy McMansions that have been built as though we are entertaining heads of state with 500sf grand foyers and granite countertops with stainless steel (commercial grade, no doubt!) appliances — for a princely sum of $800K or more.

It’s disgusting, but that’s where we are right now.

Many of us just want a safe, clean neighborhood for our kids. I’m perfectly fine with Formica countertops and linoleum/carpet flooring. We drive very basic cars and don’t wear jewelry or fancy clothing, but we DO want a clean, safe neighborhood with nice neighbors for our family. There is nothing wrong with that. What’s wrong is what people expect you to pay for it.
[/quote]
Wait, you can buy a nice townhouse in PQ or Poway for (overpriced) 500K. Not a SFH, but you asked about safe place for kids, I can find you nice places.

Reminds me of a relative who replied to my hostile question “Why did you buy (at peak in 2005)” with “I dont want to live in a stupid noisy apt my whole life”. So many people justify home purchase because they weigh choice between buying 2500SF house and renting studio apt???

[equalizer]

[quote=CA renter]paramount wrote:

And another thing: a good house is one that keeps you and your family safe and warm and is a roof over your head.

If you don’t have 10% down on a 700k house, buy a cheaper house where your down payment is equal to 20%. Or would that house not be good enough for you?

I hear you, paramount, but one of the biggest problems with So Cal is the huge disparity in wealth and income. Back when I was growing up in L.A. during the 70s and 80s, middle-class neighborhoods were the norm. Let me define what I call “middle class”: **safe**, clean neighborhoods where the homes and yards were well-maintained, neighbors watched out for each other, usually one parent stayed home and the other worked in in jobs ranging from mechanic to engineering. The homes would range from 1,300sf to ~2,000sf, and had tile or Formica countertops and regular carpet (no marble floors for us regular folks!).

These days, those neighborhoods are in the minority. You either buy in “the hood” with SFHs filled with multiple families, gang members hanging around in driveways and on street corners, staring people down and making it VERY uncomfortable to let your kids play in the front yard or walk down the street, dirt yards filled with cars, etc…

…OR you’re forced to buy McMansions that have been built as though we are entertaining heads of state with 500sf grand foyers and granite countertops with stainless steel (commercial grade, no doubt!) appliances — for a princely sum of $800K or more.

It’s disgusting, but that’s where we are right now.

Many of us just want a safe, clean neighborhood for our kids. I’m perfectly fine with Formica countertops and linoleum/carpet flooring. We drive very basic cars and don’t wear jewelry or fancy clothing, but we DO want a clean, safe neighborhood with nice neighbors for our family. There is nothing wrong with that. What’s wrong is what people expect you to pay for it.
[/quote]
Wait, you can buy a nice townhouse in PQ or Poway for (overpriced) 500K. Not a SFH, but you asked about safe place for kids, I can find you nice places.

Reminds me of a relative who replied to my hostile question “Why did you buy (at peak in 2005)” with “I dont want to live in a stupid noisy apt my whole life”. So many people justify home purchase because they weigh choice between buying 2500SF house and renting studio apt???

[equalizer]

[quote=CA renter]paramount wrote:

And another thing: a good house is one that keeps you and your family safe and warm and is a roof over your head.

If you don’t have 10% down on a 700k house, buy a cheaper house where your down payment is equal to 20%. Or would that house not be good enough for you?

I hear you, paramount, but one of the biggest problems with So Cal is the huge disparity in wealth and income. Back when I was growing up in L.A. during the 70s and 80s, middle-class neighborhoods were the norm. Let me define what I call “middle class”: **safe**, clean neighborhoods where the homes and yards were well-maintained, neighbors watched out for each other, usually one parent stayed home and the other worked in in jobs ranging from mechanic to engineering. The homes would range from 1,300sf to ~2,000sf, and had tile or Formica countertops and regular carpet (no marble floors for us regular folks!).

These days, those neighborhoods are in the minority. You either buy in “the hood” with SFHs filled with multiple families, gang members hanging around in driveways and on street corners, staring people down and making it VERY uncomfortable to let your kids play in the front yard or walk down the street, dirt yards filled with cars, etc…

…OR you’re forced to buy McMansions that have been built as though we are entertaining heads of state with 500sf grand foyers and granite countertops with stainless steel (commercial grade, no doubt!) appliances — for a princely sum of $800K or more.

It’s disgusting, but that’s where we are right now.

Many of us just want a safe, clean neighborhood for our kids. I’m perfectly fine with Formica countertops and linoleum/carpet flooring. We drive very basic cars and don’t wear jewelry or fancy clothing, but we DO want a clean, safe neighborhood with nice neighbors for our family. There is nothing wrong with that. What’s wrong is what people expect you to pay for it.
[/quote]
Wait, you can buy a nice townhouse in PQ or Poway for (overpriced) 500K. Not a SFH, but you asked about safe place for kids, I can find you nice places.

Reminds me of a relative who replied to my hostile question “Why did you buy (at peak in 2005)” with “I dont want to live in a stupid noisy apt my whole life”. So many people justify home purchase because they weigh choice between buying 2500SF house and renting studio apt???

[equalizer]

[quote=CA renter]paramount wrote:

And another thing: a good house is one that keeps you and your family safe and warm and is a roof over your head.

If you don’t have 10% down on a 700k house, buy a cheaper house where your down payment is equal to 20%. Or would that house not be good enough for you?

I hear you, paramount, but one of the biggest problems with So Cal is the huge disparity in wealth and income. Back when I was growing up in L.A. during the 70s and 80s, middle-class neighborhoods were the norm. Let me define what I call “middle class”: **safe**, clean neighborhoods where the homes and yards were well-maintained, neighbors watched out for each other, usually one parent stayed home and the other worked in in jobs ranging from mechanic to engineering. The homes would range from 1,300sf to ~2,000sf, and had tile or Formica countertops and regular carpet (no marble floors for us regular folks!).

These days, those neighborhoods are in the minority. You either buy in “the hood” with SFHs filled with multiple families, gang members hanging around in driveways and on street corners, staring people down and making it VERY uncomfortable to let your kids play in the front yard or walk down the street, dirt yards filled with cars, etc…

…OR you’re forced to buy McMansions that have been built as though we are entertaining heads of state with 500sf grand foyers and granite countertops with stainless steel (commercial grade, no doubt!) appliances — for a princely sum of $800K or more.

It’s disgusting, but that’s where we are right now.

Many of us just want a safe, clean neighborhood for our kids. I’m perfectly fine with Formica countertops and linoleum/carpet flooring. We drive very basic cars and don’t wear jewelry or fancy clothing, but we DO want a clean, safe neighborhood with nice neighbors for our family. There is nothing wrong with that. What’s wrong is what people expect you to pay for it.
[/quote]
Wait, you can buy a nice townhouse in PQ or Poway for (overpriced) 500K. Not a SFH, but you asked about safe place for kids, I can find you nice places.

Reminds me of a relative who replied to my hostile question “Why did you buy (at peak in 2005)” with “I dont want to live in a stupid noisy apt my whole life”. So many people justify home purchase because they weigh choice between buying 2500SF house and renting studio apt???

[equalizer]

[quote=CA renter]paramount wrote:

And another thing: a good house is one that keeps you and your family safe and warm and is a roof over your head.

If you don’t have 10% down on a 700k house, buy a cheaper house where your down payment is equal to 20%. Or would that house not be good enough for you?

I hear you, paramount, but one of the biggest problems with So Cal is the huge disparity in wealth and income. Back when I was growing up in L.A. during the 70s and 80s, middle-class neighborhoods were the norm. Let me define what I call “middle class”: **safe**, clean neighborhoods where the homes and yards were well-maintained, neighbors watched out for each other, usually one parent stayed home and the other worked in in jobs ranging from mechanic to engineering. The homes would range from 1,300sf to ~2,000sf, and had tile or Formica countertops and regular carpet (no marble floors for us regular folks!).

These days, those neighborhoods are in the minority. You either buy in “the hood” with SFHs filled with multiple families, gang members hanging around in driveways and on street corners, staring people down and making it VERY uncomfortable to let your kids play in the front yard or walk down the street, dirt yards filled with cars, etc…

…OR you’re forced to buy McMansions that have been built as though we are entertaining heads of state with 500sf grand foyers and granite countertops with stainless steel (commercial grade, no doubt!) appliances — for a princely sum of $800K or more.

It’s disgusting, but that’s where we are right now.

Many of us just want a safe, clean neighborhood for our kids. I’m perfectly fine with Formica countertops and linoleum/carpet flooring. We drive very basic cars and don’t wear jewelry or fancy clothing, but we DO want a clean, safe neighborhood with nice neighbors for our family. There is nothing wrong with that. What’s wrong is what people expect you to pay for it.
[/quote]
Wait, you can buy a nice townhouse in PQ or Poway for (overpriced) 500K. Not a SFH, but you asked about safe place for kids, I can find you nice places.

Reminds me of a relative who replied to my hostile question “Why did you buy (at peak in 2005)” with “I dont want to live in a stupid noisy apt my whole life”. So many people justify home purchase because they weigh choice between buying 2500SF house and renting studio apt???

[TheBreeze]

[quote=davelj]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.[/quote]

A couple things:
(1) It may be that folks like John Thain, etc committed fraud by talking up their companies when they knew otherwise. That’s one way to go after them.

(2) The laws can be changed. It’s time for a wealth tax in this country. There’s no way that 1% of the population should hold 90% of the wealth. Especially when a large portion of that 1% has now been bailed out by taxpayers.

The wealth tax should only target the top 1% and maybe have it expire in 8 years. Something like 5% a year for 8 years ought to start evening things out.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=davelj]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.[/quote]

A couple things:
(1) It may be that folks like John Thain, etc committed fraud by talking up their companies when they knew otherwise. That’s one way to go after them.

(2) The laws can be changed. It’s time for a wealth tax in this country. There’s no way that 1% of the population should hold 90% of the wealth. Especially when a large portion of that 1% has now been bailed out by taxpayers.

The wealth tax should only target the top 1% and maybe have it expire in 8 years. Something like 5% a year for 8 years ought to start evening things out.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=davelj]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.[/quote]

A couple things:
(1) It may be that folks like John Thain, etc committed fraud by talking up their companies when they knew otherwise. That’s one way to go after them.

(2) The laws can be changed. It’s time for a wealth tax in this country. There’s no way that 1% of the population should hold 90% of the wealth. Especially when a large portion of that 1% has now been bailed out by taxpayers.

The wealth tax should only target the top 1% and maybe have it expire in 8 years. Something like 5% a year for 8 years ought to start evening things out.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=davelj]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.[/quote]

A couple things:
(1) It may be that folks like John Thain, etc committed fraud by talking up their companies when they knew otherwise. That’s one way to go after them.

(2) The laws can be changed. It’s time for a wealth tax in this country. There’s no way that 1% of the population should hold 90% of the wealth. Especially when a large portion of that 1% has now been bailed out by taxpayers.

The wealth tax should only target the top 1% and maybe have it expire in 8 years. Something like 5% a year for 8 years ought to start evening things out.

[Author]

Posts