jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (45 posts)

Creating Demand Is NOT The Solution!

  1. lady_love158 profile image60
    lady_love158posted 6 years ago

    http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/1 … economics/

    Sadly too many here believe as Jesses Jackson Jr. does. Luckily for us they aren't in congress too. His ideas teach us a couple of lessons, that elected and educated people in government are not the best and brightest nor are they correct nor wise or anything else other than partisian fools wedded to the wicked ideology of liberalism. The other lesson? That liberalism is wrong and will never work!

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "But Lady Love, don't you know that WWII got us out of the Great Depression?"

      *cough*

      1. profile image60
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Pray tell, what did get us out of the Great Depression?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          government finally relaxing it's grip on the economy.

          The problem is that Keynes thinks that "building a bunch of bombs, and then blowing them up in europe" is a GOOD thing.

          that's why he has been wrong repeatedly.

          I'll let Hayek make my point for me:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Well you didn't actually do it out of the goodness of your hearts did you.
            We've finally, after fifty odd years, paid you back.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              We got into the depression because we were bailing out the UK.

              Sorry to inform you.

              After WW1, the Brits printed too much money, but still wanted their pounds to be worth the value of gold that they previously were. So we inflated our money to help you guys out.

              Then a world wide crash ensued.

              Thanks Britain, thanks.

              1. psycheskinner profile image81
                psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You got them back with that last recession caused by US-hosted designed-to-fail debt.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  In spades lol

          2. hottopics profile image56
            hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Evan,

            First I agree with you, Hayek has the more sound philosiphy. He is also the award winner between the both of them. The clip was funny, so here are some facts incase people who see the clip do not get it

            Friedrich August Hayek CH (8 May 1899 – 23 March 1992), born in Austria-Hungary as Friedrich August von Hayek, was an economist and philosopher best known for his defense of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought. He is considered to be one of the most important economists and political philosophers of the twentieth century, winning the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974. Along with his mentor Ludwig von Mises, he was an important contributor to the Austrian school of political economy.[1] Hayek's account of how changing prices communicate signals which enable individuals to coordinate their plans is widely regarded as an important achievement in economics.[2] Hayek also produced significant work in the fields of systems thinking, jurisprudence, neuroscience and the history of ideas.
            Hayek served in World War I, and said that his experience in the war and his desire to help avoid the mistakes that had led to the war (see below) led him to his career. He took his first position in 1927, the same year that Joseph Stalin consolidated his power in the Soviet Union by expelling Leon Trotsky from the Communist Party. Fascism was at the same time rising in Germany and Italy. Additionally, the Great Depression began in 1929, at the very start of Hayek's career.
            In 1974 Hayek shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics (with Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal) for his "pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and [his] penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena."[3] He also received the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991 from president George H. W. Bush.[4]
            Hayek lived in Austria, Great Britain, the United States and Germany, and became a British subject in 1938. He spent most of his academic life at the London School of Economics (LSE), the University of Chicago, and the University of Freiburg.


            John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes (  /ˈkeɪnz/ KAYN-z; 5 June 1883 – 21 April 1946), CB, was a British economist whose ideas have profoundly affected the theory and practice of modern macroeconomics, as well as the economic policies of governments. He greatly refined earlier work on the causes of business cycles, and advocated the use of fiscal and monetary measures to mitigate the adverse effects of economic recessions and depressions. His ideas are the basis for the school of thought known as Keynesian economics, as well as its various offshoots.
            In the 1930s, Keynes spearheaded a revolution in economic thinking, overturning the older ideas of neoclassical economics that held that free markets would in the short to medium term automatically provide full employment, as long as workers were flexible in their wage demands. Keynes instead argued that aggregate demand determined the overall level of economic activity, and that inadequate aggregate demand could lead to prolonged periods of high unemployment. Following the outbreak of World War II, Keynes's ideas concerning economic policy were adopted by leading Western economies. During the 1950s and 1960s, the success of Keynesian economics resulted in almost all capitalist governments adopting its policy recommendations, promoting the cause of social liberalism.
            Keynes's influence waned in the 1970s, partly as a result of problems that began to afflict the Anglo-American economies from the start of the decade, and partly because of critiques from Milton Friedman and other economists who were pessimistic about the ability of governments to regulate the business cycle with fiscal policy.[1] However, the advent of the global financial crisis in 2007 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought. Keynesian economics has provided the theoretical underpinning for economic policies undertaken in response to the crisis by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama of the United States, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom, and other global leaders.[2]
            Keynes is widely considered to be one of the founders of modern macroeconomics, and to be the most influential economist of the 20th century.[3][4][5] In 1999, Time magazine included Keynes in their list of the 100 most important and influential people of the 20th century, commenting that; "His radical idea that governments should spend money they don't have may have saved capitalism".[6] In addition to being an economist, Keynes was also a civil servant, a director of the Bank of England, a patron of the arts and an art collector, a part of the Bloomsbury Group of intellectuals,[7] an advisor to several charitable trusts, a writer, a private investor, and a farmer. In 1925, he married the Russian ballerina Lydia Lopokova but had no children.

            Source-Wikipedia

          3. profile image60
            C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "The problem is that Keynes thinks that "building a bunch of bombs, and then blowing them up in europe" is a GOOD thing."

            They may think that. I agree with you, that's not the reason though. Wealth is created when people find ways to do more with less. That creates the opportunity for saving and thus wealth through investment and planning. WWII did in fact encourage that enviroment. It wasn't the motivation behind WWII, it was a side effect.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Right, but WWII didn't help us to more with less, it gave us less and made our lives shittier.

              We couldn't save squat because it was all going to the military.

              The people working on the Nuclear bomb couldn't even get cars because of rubber shortages.

              Sorry, WWII did NOT get us out of the depression.

              1. profile image60
                C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                How high was unemployment during WWII? When you mention supplying the Millitary, you should realize that it was NOT just the US Millitary. It was the entire Allied Army. Money that was paid back, $4.34 billion with a 2% interest rate to the UK alone. On top of that it was US Citizens and contractors who profitted most from rebuilding Europe and Japan. We walked away from WWII as "King of the Hill" financially speaking. We made HUGE technological leaps as a result of WWII. Advances that paid HUGE dividends in the years following the war.

                Unfortunately we didn't pay down our own war debt and it's haunted us ever since.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  pure nonsense.

                  sending 11 million of the most able-bodied workers in a society to die in a foreign country to kill other able-bodied workers in their prime is NOT employment.

                  Newsflash: fantastic technological achievements occur without war. In fact, most happen without war! ... so there goes that argument of yours!

                  1. profile image60
                    C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Pure nonsense? Hardly. Not all of the employment involved combat. Nice none answer though. I thought we were debating, not playing dodge ball. So maybe you need to rethink your one dimensional argument. I never said that technological advances only come out of war. You chose to twist my words to make your argument.

                    Rocket technology was developed in WWII FOR WAR. The result? NASA! Huge advances were made in the automotive industry, specifically in the area of production and manufacturing. The airline industry took off after WWII. Why? All those pilots returning. Not to mention aviation mechanics and surplus aircraft. I could go on and on.

                    It's pretty clear by reading your comments in the forums that you are pretty sure you know it all and everyone else is wrong. That's fine. However when you routinely use words like "Pure Nonsense". That's a bit beneath you, don't you think?

          4. hottopics profile image56
            hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Evan,

            I agree with you. The clip was funny. Only one of these men has won awards for their work. I post some facts about these 2 since some people will not understand the clip

            Friedrich August Hayek CH (8 May 1899 – 23 March 1992), born in Austria-Hungary as Friedrich August von Hayek, was an economist and philosopher best known for his defense of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought. He is considered to be one of the most important economists and political philosophers of the twentieth century, winning the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974. Along with his mentor Ludwig von Mises, he was an important contributor to the Austrian school of political economy.[1] Hayek's account of how changing prices communicate signals which enable individuals to coordinate their plans is widely regarded as an important achievement in economics.[2] Hayek also produced significant work in the fields of systems thinking, jurisprudence, neuroscience and the history of ideas.
            Hayek served in World War I, and said that his experience in the war and his desire to help avoid the mistakes that had led to the war (see below) led him to his career. He took his first position in 1927, the same year that Joseph Stalin consolidated his power in the Soviet Union by expelling Leon Trotsky from the Communist Party. Fascism was at the same time rising in Germany and Italy. Additionally, the Great Depression began in 1929, at the very start of Hayek's career.
            In 1974 Hayek shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics (with Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal) for his "pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and [his] penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena."[3] He also received the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991 from president George H. W. Bush.[4]
            Hayek lived in Austria, Great Britain, the United States and Germany, and became a British subject in 1938. He spent most of his academic life at the London School of Economics (LSE), the University of Chicago, and the University of Freiburg.


            John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes (  /ˈkeɪnz/ KAYN-z; 5 June 1883 – 21 April 1946), CB, was a British economist whose ideas have profoundly affected the theory and practice of modern macroeconomics, as well as the economic policies of governments. He greatly refined earlier work on the causes of business cycles, and advocated the use of fiscal and monetary measures to mitigate the adverse effects of economic recessions and depressions. His ideas are the basis for the school of thought known as Keynesian economics, as well as its various offshoots.
            In the 1930s, Keynes spearheaded a revolution in economic thinking, overturning the older ideas of neoclassical economics that held that free markets would in the short to medium term automatically provide full employment, as long as workers were flexible in their wage demands. Keynes instead argued that aggregate demand determined the overall level of economic activity, and that inadequate aggregate demand could lead to prolonged periods of high unemployment. Following the outbreak of World War II, Keynes's ideas concerning economic policy were adopted by leading Western economies. During the 1950s and 1960s, the success of Keynesian economics resulted in almost all capitalist governments adopting its policy recommendations, promoting the cause of social liberalism.
            Keynes's influence waned in the 1970s, partly as a result of problems that began to afflict the Anglo-American economies from the start of the decade, and partly because of critiques from Milton Friedman and other economists who were pessimistic about the ability of governments to regulate the business cycle with fiscal policy.[1] However, the advent of the global financial crisis in 2007 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought. Keynesian economics has provided the theoretical underpinning for economic policies undertaken in response to the crisis by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama of the United States, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom, and other global leaders.[2]
            Keynes is widely considered to be one of the founders of modern macroeconomics, and to be the most influential economist of the 20th century.[3][4][5] In 1999, Time magazine included Keynes in their list of the 100 most important and influential people of the 20th century, commenting that; "His radical idea that governments should spend money they don't have may have saved capitalism".[6] In addition to being an economist, Keynes was also a civil servant, a director of the Bank of England, a patron of the arts and an art collector, a part of the Bloomsbury Group of intellectuals,[7] an advisor to several charitable trusts, a writer, a private investor, and a farmer. In 1925, he married the Russian ballerina Lydia Lopokova but had no children.

            Source-Friedrich August Hayek CH (8 May 1899 – 23 March 1992), born in Austria-Hungary as Friedrich August von Hayek, was an economist and philosopher best known for his defense of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought. He is considered to be one of the most important economists and political philosophers of the twentieth century, winning the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974. Along with his mentor Ludwig von Mises, he was an important contributor to the Austrian school of political economy.[1] Hayek's account of how changing prices communicate signals which enable individuals to coordinate their plans is widely regarded as an important achievement in economics.[2] Hayek also produced significant work in the fields of systems thinking, jurisprudence, neuroscience and the history of ideas.
            Hayek served in World War I, and said that his experience in the war and his desire to help avoid the mistakes that had led to the war (see below) led him to his career. He took his first position in 1927, the same year that Joseph Stalin consolidated his power in the Soviet Union by expelling Leon Trotsky from the Communist Party. Fascism was at the same time rising in Germany and Italy. Additionally, the Great Depression began in 1929, at the very start of Hayek's career.
            In 1974 Hayek shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics (with Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal) for his "pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and [his] penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena."[3] He also received the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991 from president George H. W. Bush.[4]
            Hayek lived in Austria, Great Britain, the United States and Germany, and became a British subject in 1938. He spent most of his academic life at the London School of Economics (LSE), the University of Chicago, and the University of Freiburg.


            John Maynard Keynes, 1st Baron Keynes (  /ˈkeɪnz/ KAYN-z; 5 June 1883 – 21 April 1946), CB, was a British economist whose ideas have profoundly affected the theory and practice of modern macroeconomics, as well as the economic policies of governments. He greatly refined earlier work on the causes of business cycles, and advocated the use of fiscal and monetary measures to mitigate the adverse effects of economic recessions and depressions. His ideas are the basis for the school of thought known as Keynesian economics, as well as its various offshoots.
            In the 1930s, Keynes spearheaded a revolution in economic thinking, overturning the older ideas of neoclassical economics that held that free markets would in the short to medium term automatically provide full employment, as long as workers were flexible in their wage demands. Keynes instead argued that aggregate demand determined the overall level of economic activity, and that inadequate aggregate demand could lead to prolonged periods of high unemployment. Following the outbreak of World War II, Keynes's ideas concerning economic policy were adopted by leading Western economies. During the 1950s and 1960s, the success of Keynesian economics resulted in almost all capitalist governments adopting its policy recommendations, promoting the cause of social liberalism.
            Keynes's influence waned in the 1970s, partly as a result of problems that began to afflict the Anglo-American economies from the start of the decade, and partly because of critiques from Milton Friedman and other economists who were pessimistic about the ability of governments to regulate the business cycle with fiscal policy.[1] However, the advent of the global financial crisis in 2007 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought. Keynesian economics has provided the theoretical underpinning for economic policies undertaken in response to the crisis by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama of the United States, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom, and other global leaders.[2]
            Keynes is widely considered to be one of the founders of modern macroeconomics, and to be the most influential economist of the 20th century.[3][4][5] In 1999, Time magazine included Keynes in their list of the 100 most important and influential people of the 20th century, commenting that; "His radical idea that governments should spend money they don't have may have saved capitalism".[6] In addition to being an economist, Keynes was also a civil servant, a director of the Bank of England, a patron of the arts and an art collector, a part of the Bloomsbury Group of intellectuals,[7] an advisor to several charitable trusts, a writer, a private investor, and a farmer. In 1925, he married the Russian ballerina Lydia Lopokova but had no children.

            source-Wikipedia

  2. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Well, I agree with part of JJJr's ideas.
    We sort of already tried the every American deserves a house thing and it exploded in everyone's face. Sadly, many are too stupid, greedy and gullible to buy a home. There's nothing wrong with paying rent.
    I do believe our citizens deserve health care. It is not an entitlement or a privilege. It is a right. America is barbaric in its approach to rationing health care. Don't get me started on this. Makes me ill (no pun intended).
    And education? We are sitting by, willfully becoming dumber and dumber. We are letting our children graduate without basic skills. What good are jobs is our people are too ignorant to work them? Do we really want to create work for India, Pakistan and the Philippines (to name but a few)? Or do we want to step back up to the plate and ensure that Americans are not the dumb-ass laughing stock of the educated world???
    Giving each student a computer is a metaphor for supplying them with the tools to acquire knowledge.
    There is nothing "wicked" in that ideology. The wickedness is in turning a blind eye to what is really happening to our country. Hint: it has to do with going somewhere hot and evil in a handbasket.

    1. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No one "deserves" anything except what they work to earn.
      We're spending more than ever before on education in fact education spending has risen steadily since Carter created the Department of Education and how's that working out?
      You sure don't need a computer to become educated you simply have to know how to read.
      Health care is NOT a "right" rights are something that do not come at the expense of others.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image90
        Mighty Momposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        One could argue that simply being alive is at the expense of others.
        Very, very few of us can live completely independently.
        As a country, we need to decide what is important to us and how to invest the income our government takes in via taxes so that we best benefit our citizens.
        Children can't "earn" their education. But they deserve it and they need it for themselves and for American competitiveness.
        Many Americans cannot "earn" their health care coverage (or even if they can earn it, they can't purchase it under present market conditions!).
        Unless I have substantial financial means (e.g., I can choose to live anywhere in the country or world) I cannot "buy" clean air to breathe or clean water to drink.
        Some things are necessities and they are not for sale.

        1. lady_love158 profile image60
          lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Go ahead make the argument!

          The role of government, our government is not to take our money and decide how to spend it to help different groups of our society that some bureaucrats think deserve it... at least that's not to be found ANYWHERE in our constitution and PLEASE don't cite the "general welfare" clause until after you read federalist 41 after which you'll understand why you can't cite it at all.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The people buying homes weren't greedy and gullible. They were victims of monetary inflation. Greenspan should be thrown in jail.

      1. hottopics profile image56
        hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        They were not greedy or gulluble, They were victims of the banks greed by using the loopholes created for them by Barney frank, Phil Grahm, just to name a few

        1. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          They were also willing to acquire more debt than they could service.

          1. lady_love158 profile image60
            lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Made easier by... the government!

            1. psycheskinner profile image81
              psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The conditions encouraged the stupidity, but the people still had to be stupid.

              1. Mighty Mom profile image90
                Mighty Momposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                My sentiments exactly!
                I'd like to see financial fitness taught along with the "three Rs" in school.

                1. profile image60
                  C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Schools used to. It was called "Business Math". It was a practicle course that taught math from a personal finance perspective. Home Economics was also good for this. We decided that Home Ec was sexist and Business Math was beneath us. Now we let the Credit card companies teach our children about personal finance.

                  1. Mighty Mom profile image90
                    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    We may be of different generations, CJ, but "Home Economics" when I was in school was sexist. It was only for girls and taught us how to sew and make casseroles. Nothing about the economics of running a household!
                    Meanwhiles the boys took "Shop."
                    There was no business math or personal finance offered at my high school. What small amount I managed to absorb I got from being elected class Treasurer in 10th grade. I'd never seen a checkbook before!

        2. Mighty Mom profile image90
          Mighty Momposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Nobody can make you buy a home you can't afford against your will.
          Do I believe the bulk of the blame lies with the schemers who floated the sub-prime loans? Yes.
          But come on. Greed and gullibility on the part of the public also played a huge role in this fiasco.
          Where are the champions of "personal responsibility" on this one?
          If you spill hot McDonald's coffee on your lap while driving whose fault is it?
          If you buy a $700,000 house with 0% down and an adjustable 1% mortgage and you only make $25K a year and have $20K in credit card debt and 2 car payments totalling $600 a month -- did you really, really think that is afforable for you?

          1. hottopics profile image56
            hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Mom,

            You are right, there is an amount of personal responsibility. But the banks never should have made those loans. They knew when the ARM would adjust, the homeowner would not be able to afford it. But the banks did not care because they made money flipping the loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Thats why the taxpayers got stuck with the check when this collape happened. And it is not over yet.

            1. Mighty Mom profile image90
              Mighty Momposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, hottopics,
              I see that on a macro scale it was a conspiracy foisted by the banking industry and government. Shameful. Criminal, in fact.
              But....
              such a plan would never have worked if there wasn't a ready-made audience of lemmings eager to sign on the line and jump off the cliff.
              That is where I feel we, as consumers, need to learn to protect ourselves. And the fact that even a college educated person can't grasp the fine print of a mortgage contract (or even a credit card agreement!) says that something is very, very wrong here.

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image78
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            What the hell? when did Mighty Mom turn into a fiscal conservative?

            1. Mighty Mom profile image90
              Mighty Momposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You funny man, Evan!
              Just as there are shades of Red/gray, there are shades of Blue/gray here on HP.
              I've said it many, many, many times.
              I AM a fiscal conservative.smile
              But a qualified one.
              Live within your means, but make sure your means cover needed social programs like SS, Medicaid, Medicare.
              Simple, isn't it?
              lol!

          3. DTR0005 profile image83
            DTR0005posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Well-put Mighty Mom. We can't forget the all-too-neglected factor: personal responsibility. Of course there is no denying that lenders made an initial killing off the stupidity of Americans.

            1. Mighty Mom profile image90
              Mighty Momposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              No kidding. Those too-big-to-fail financial institutions have been making killings off the unsuspecting public for years.
              Our parents managed to live, buy homes, buy goods, cars, etc. without credit cards.
              Don't tell me we all NEED 5 cards in our wallets with combined "available credit" of $60K (at 15%+ APR each).
              Who is winning under that scenario?
              Not the average Joe.
              But hey, with our spend-happy government as our model, how can we expect rank and file citizens to be thrifty and frugal?
              Not to mention the instant gratification of e-bay and other online buying. Used to be you had to drive to the store - and it wasn't open 24/7 or even 7.
              I want it all... and I want it NOW!!! (gotta love Queen!)

      2. profile image60
        C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        They didn't understand simple math. That's why. Does that make them victims? I don't think so. However, the terms used in modern day mortgage and credit contracts should be outright illegal. In my opinion they are intentionally written in such a  way as to hide the truth they contain.

        Then of course there is the issue of people buying more house than they could afford. This was irresponsible lending and irresponsible borrowing. Typically your note should not exceed 25% of your income. With the caveat, house note plus all other debt does not exceed 30%. During the Bush Presidency, this safeguard was thrown out the window. With all of these "Community Organizations" guiding these people into this trap? Can you say ACORN!

        1. Mighty Mom profile image90
          Mighty Momposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, I think quite a few Americans found their way into the trap without any help from any community organizations like ACORN.
          Not excusing ACORN, just saying many flies flew into the web of their very own accord. sad

          And you know what? The relaxation of income verification and sound lending principles was the industry norm. I could NEVER get the loan I got in 2007 today.
          The horse is out of the barn and now the lenders are shut tight like friggin Fort Knox. It's insane.

          1. profile image60
            C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            No doubt that ACORN wasn't the only one. However they were out to "HELP". I can't fault a Bank for being greedy....it's in their nature, buyer beware. However I can fault an organization for being willfully ignorant.

            I agree, there are many who are still making ends meet who couldn't qualify for the same loan today. The odds are against you MM. Play it smart and good luck!

  3. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Hey thanks, CJ.
    I did play it smart. I got a fixed rate mortgage.
    Haven't missed a payment and haven't been late.
    But, like so many Americans, the economy has taken a toll on my household.
    I am very grateful not to be in the position of those who have had to walk away from their loans, do a short sale or be foreclosed on.
    My own beef (as the proverbial "good girl") is being caught in the trap anyway.
    I have asked my lender (USAA -- you'd think they'd be all for helping military families, right?) to refinance my loan, since interest rates are much lower than when I signed in 2007.
    They ask me one question: Are you still making the same income as when you got the loan?
    Me: No, I am not. I want to reduce my monthly payments.
    USAA: Well, you don't have enough income to refinance.
    Me: So let me get this straight. I don't have enough income to pay a smaller mortgage amount every month but I magically have enough income to keep paying the same amount as I was paying you when I was making more income?
    How in God's name does that make ANY sense????
    It doesn't!!!
    From one insane extreme ... to the other.
    Crazymaking!!!

    1. profile image60
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I have had serious issues with USAA. I would steer clear of those clowns at all cost. If you have a military affiliation, try one of the many Credit Unions. They may be more helpfull.

      "So let me get this straight. I don't have enough income to pay a smaller mortgage amount every month but I magically have enough income to keep paying the same amount as I was paying you when I was making more income?
      How in God's name does that make ANY sense????"

      Because they are going to make those who can pay, pay for those who can't. Many can't afford the homes they are in at any intrest rate! The banks know that there is still a LOT of bad paper out there. They are bracing for it. Further they are more likely to deal with someone who is having trouble making payments. It's counter intuative on a personal level, but you have to see their perspective. They have about 8 times more in loans than they have actually in cash assets. Granted, they have the house, but in this market they don't want it! It's already worth less than you paid for it...probably.

 
working