Originally Posted By Mr X ***just got a letter from AmEx this week -- after buying his son a brand new car for college for $18,000 cash -- they told him they had reviewed his file and were lowering his $14,000 limit to $6,000 (he owes them about $5,800). Told the wife to forget about Christmas shopping.*** Sounds like a matter of unfortunate timing, to say the least...but what did they do, cancel Chrismas over it? They didn't have a couple hundred bucks in cash to buy some presents? Or a couple of twenties and some creativity? Or no money at all, but a spirit of giving? OR, does "forget about Christmas shopping" mean, for them, that unless they can spend thousands on elaborate and over the top gifts then that means that Christmas "must be canceled"? They should read "the Gift of the Magi", or else watch "A Charlie Brown Christmas" and listen carefully to Linus, or something.... What a horrible thing for that guy to say! You need to run with a different crowd of Spirits, Spirit!
Originally Posted By itsme Since they seem to be both the same I'll answer a few posts in one. >>Do I detect a tone of confrontation in your post? Spirit wasw merely passing on information that he was given.>> No confrontation, just pointing out simply that the info is bogus, If I wanted to be confrontational I would ask why you are not trying present anything other then continually saying Spirt's info is right, you gotta believe it. >>And I said on another site that this number will likely go up.>> >>BUT ... it is important to realize that even if that number goes up, which it is sure to, into the 40s or even 50s, Disney still will be doing very poorly.>> Vanna may I buy a vowel, Spin wheel spin! whats this here "it is important to realize that even if that number goes up, WHICH IT IS SURE TO". I like how you also mention some other site, What are you helping push some other site? But anyway, seems like your already starting to back off your original rock solid info. >>And scary as it may be, even Jim Hill has gone with that number and I KNOW my sources are not his.>> Jim Hill? yea there is a rock solid site to help bolster your cause. Hey speaking of Hill, I checked out his site to see what his so called info was and what do you know he wrote about this and it just so happened to be earlier in the day before you did. >>But SportGoofy and itsme are management apologists who only seem to appear in threads I post to take shots at me personally. I don't really care, but that's been their track record.>> Aww shucks they are picking on me but don't worry it doesn't bother me, cause I never have to answer anything directed at me I can just say I'm sticking by my info. Anyway I dont want to speak for SportGoofy but as for me thanks for the complimnent, If you would like I can try to hang around to expose more of your bogus info more often. >>Just so it is crystal clear ... I stand 100% behind the fact that as of late last week when the information was forwarded to me the CURRENT booking level for WDW resorts for the entire month of January (for however many rooms Disney management has put out in the systems at CRO) was around 35%. Here we go again with the spin. You stand behind your info 100% which originally was for the month, then you stated that the number surly will go up, now it only counts as of last week when the info was presented to you or is it the current booking level? I know its a waste to ask questions cause the "I know more then Disney" crowd wont answer them but it amuses me to watch them get bothered by it. So check your info, is Disney holding back rooms the week that Trippy showed at the Boardwalk, Wilderness, Polynesian etc?
Originally Posted By Mr X Kennect, sorry to hear you're going through a bad situation. and I hope things improve soon! (if anything, PERHAPS your comments might ring true for thickheads like RoadTrip who seem to continue on the clueless "everything is okay" idiocy-train...PERHAPS he might just take notice, I really hope so, but I doubt it since he has said naive and ridiculous stuff for months now (despite my proving him wrong time and again) and nothing seems to stop him from doing so, even while all major economic EXPERTS finally agreed with ME and not HIM that the world is crashing down in an OBVIOUS way on top of all our heads at this point...duh)
Originally Posted By Mr X ***What % of that Trillion will have absolutely no impact on people? I probably have 70K of credit available that I've never used and never will use. If my limits were all cut by 50% it would be a big who cares? It wouldn't even impact my FICO. Again, I am certainly not unique. There are many people out there who have credit cards with significant credit limits who NEVER use them.*** Important to note that RoadTrip and his idiot advice over the past couple of years would have cost you money if you'd been dumb enough to listen to him. My advice, on the other hand, has been spot on. NOW, he tries to argue that it's the fault of "the negative nellies". Well, no. That's just not the case. Things are bad, because they're bad (I've explained the reasons behind it a million times here), NOT because everyone is in a panic and "everyone should just calm down". Duh. Wrong, wrong, wrong.... And economic experts now (finally) tend to agree with me. Good luck finding one that doesn't. RoadTrip is as naive as he is uninformed, and it would be downright DANGEROUS to listen to this guy. Seriously.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***People ARE NOT BROKE. They are scared and not spending. There are trouble spots in the country as far as real estate goes. There are industries where unemployment is bad. But overall the country is not in terrible shape. Not unless people let the fear get to them.*** Again, don't trust THIS guy. He was crying "back in the water!" when the markets were about 20% HIGHER than they were today. Consider the source.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<So does that mean that paying my Amex in full each month is not helping me?>> Spirit is out to lunch on this one. Paying you Amex in full each month certainly will help you. The cuts in credit line are not really based on whether you pay your balance in full each month or not. Amex is currently looking at two areas when evaluating credit that they never used before: 1) Foreclosure rate in your zip code. 2) Where you use your card. If they decide to cut your credit limit they will cut it regardless of whether you pay in full each month. If you currently have a 20K limit and are carrying a balance of 9K on your card, your credit rating would be really hit if they cut your limit to 10K. If you pay off your balance each month that is typically between $500 and $1K, the reduction in your limit would have no impact on your credit rating.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip X, I really get tired of your condescending foaming at the mouth. I have never doubted that some people are in serious financial trouble now. But even if those in bad shape are 20% of the population, that still means that the great majority, 80%, are doing OK. The media breathlessly reports data that means nothing and declares that the world is ending. Folks like you apparently suck it up like a Hoover. I remember the recent report that Americans in total NOW OWED MORE ON THEIR HOMES THAN THEY HAD IN EQUITY. So what? That means if I have a home worth $300,000 I owe more than $150,000 on it. Frankly, owing just 50% of your home value would be a very good thing for most people. I'm also not at all convinced that the cutback in credit will be as devastating to Disney as you think it will be. Certainly on this board, there are very few people who say they charge their WDW trips on a credit card (without paying it off the month after the trip). I think most people are pretty reluctant to charge something intangible on a credit card. You buy a sofa on a charge card, that sofa is likely to still be there 5 years from now. A vacation is gone immediately. I just can’t believe a majority of people would put that type of expense on a charge card. One last comment. Many of the LP'ers live in California or Florida. Things SUCK in California and Florida. They suck in Las Vegas and Phoenix too. People in those areas are going to see nothing but gloom and doom, and for THEIR AREA they are right. But there is a huge country out there between California and Florida, and most areas did not have the huge run up in prices that those areas did, and therefore are not seeing as big a collapse in housing prices. Things certainly are not good. But they certainly aren’t as gloom and doom as our LP pessimists make them out to be.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<He was crying "back in the water!" when the markets were about 20% HIGHER than they were today.>> X, Please at least attempt to keep your insults accurate. I was last positive about the market (at least on any post I could find) on October 15, 2009. The DJIA closed that day at 8,577.91. It closed yesterday at 8,591.69. I may not be the world’s greatest math genius, but even I can tell that is not a loss. Certainly not a 20% loss. You really shouldn't make this stuff up as you go along.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Let’s see Mr X... All of your insulting posts were made between 12:17 AM and 12:45 AM Tokyo time. So to ask the SPP question... Were you drunk or just tired?
Originally Posted By brerroadrunner You are correct that the real estate market is hit harder in Florida and California. I am a Realtor in the Midwest and our area did not have the run up on prices as bad as the coast, but our housing prices are dropping, fortunately not as drastically as other areas. But, no one is buying. Everyone is waiting for it to bottom out. Interest rates are still good, prices are lower, and there are some fantastic offerings out there. But you can’t get anyone to take advantage of it. Everyone is to scared right now. Our phones are not ringing. This is hurting many, many people. Those who need to sell and can’t find any buyers. My take on all those people who are upside own on their mortgages and bought high should just be patient. It’s just like the stock market. You only loose if you sell now. Wait it out. The real estate market will recover, prices will rebound and you will have equity (Only if you stay out of the HELOC) The media dealt the housing market a terrible blow the last couple of years. They constantly reported how the sky was falling and everyone started believing it was, when in actuality, some areas were thriving! The media had a big influence on the election like they had a big influence on the housing market.
Originally Posted By itsme The banks created part of the housing issues themselves, People wanting to live above their means and the media were the other parts. The banks made it to easy for people to buy homes they had no business buying with creative loans, alot of them are the ones that are now hurting and helping bring the market down. To many people today have the thought process that if they have $100 in their pocket they feel the need to spend $130.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Hey RoadTrip & Mr X: let's all try to calm down. We're all just friends trying to have a conversation here. However, I do have to make a comment about what RoadTrip has had to say about the financial situation and it not being that bad. We all approach things from our own points of view and our own life experience - this is only natural. Based on what RoadTrip has shared with us in the past, he: - works for the gov't, which means: - he has a generous set of benefits - he has very little chance of having his pay or benefits cut substantially, if at all - his employer is unlikely to go bankrupt or out of business - is unlikely to lose any vested retirement benefits in a bankruptcy proceeding - is unlikely to lose his job - lives in an area that did not experience the crazy appreciation of house values that many of the large population centers in the country have had to deal with But that set or similar sets of circumstances make up a relatively minor portion of the American workforce. My opinion is that RT underestimates the degree to which the stock, credit, housing, and job/employment markets affect the average Joe. And I can think and say that without calling him an idiot, or even thinking that he's one. But that's just one man's opinion.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< ***just got a letter from AmEx this week -- after buying his son a brand new car for college for $18,000 cash -- they told him they had reviewed his file and were lowering his $14,000 limit to $6,000 (he owes them about $5,800). Told the wife to forget about Christmas shopping.*** >>> What struck me about the above situation is that someone apparently was in a situation where they had $18,000 cash, $5,800 owed on a credit card with a $14,000 limit, and chose to use all of the cash to buy a new car for someone else (their son), leaving himself with no cash. Then, when the bank lowered the credit limit to just above his current balance, Christmas shopping got canceled. That doesn't sound like a good way to handle money under any circumstances.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<However, I do have to make a comment about what RoadTrip has had to say about the financial situation and it not being that bad. We all approach things from our own points of view and our own life experience - this is only natural.>> I can admit that. It is something we all do. Of course when I think of everyone I know, who do I come up with? People from work. After spending 30 years at the U of M, most of my friends are also U employees. My best friend from college is not a U employee, but is self-employed. He recently bought a $1.2 million house (without a smoke and mirrors loan), so he apparently isn't doing too badly either. So I must admit, I really don't know anyone who is hurting. <<My opinion is that RT underestimates the degree to which the stock, credit, housing, and job/employment markets affect the average Joe.>> This is where I think fear takes over. I know people are WORRIED about their stock, credit, housing, and job market. But for how many people is this a REALISTIC worry? Right now we have about 6% unemployment. Even the pessimists are not projecting a peak unemployment rate higher than 8.5%. Now while it will be a personal tragedy for those 8.5%, that means 91.8% really don't have cause to worry about their jobs. Housing also impacts a relatively few number of people. In most U.S. markets if you have been in your home 4 years or more it is STILL worth more than what you paid for it. Most people probably worry about the value of their house, but relatively few of them have any real reason to do so. The same goes for the stock market. Everyone worries about how it has been in free-fall over the past year. But again, how many TRULY need to worry about it? Anyone who puts money in the market that they need for current expenses is nuts in the first place, so we won't worry about them. For most people, investments are done looking to the long term. Unless a person plans to retire or has some other pressing need like funding their kid’s college in the next 3-4 years that really shouldn't be a problem for them. For those impacted it is terrible. But how many is it really hurting? The thing that I hate is that while relatively few people have a REAL reason to be scared, virtually everyone is. Why? Because of the gloom and doomers in the media and in public forums like this. You get everyone scared and they stop spending. Everyone stops spending and then things get REALLY bad. That is what is happening right now. The gloom and doomers have created a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***<<So does that mean that paying my Amex in full each month is not helping me?>> Spirit is out to lunch on this one.*** Wow. RoadTrip calling someone else "out to lunch". Great irony there! ***I have never doubted that some people are in serious financial trouble now. But even if those in bad shape are 20% of the population, that still means that the great majority, 80%, are doing OK.*** Again pointing out your extreme naivety. In the early 1930's, unemployment peaked at a "mere" 25%. I guess that means 75% of the folks back then were just fine. Right? ***Please at least attempt to keep your insults accurate. I was last positive about the market (at least on any post I could find) on October 15, 2009.*** Firstly, I wasn't talking about the *last* time you were positive on the market. You were bloviating your bad advice all the way down long before then. And mocking those of us who were concerned. Nice try.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The media breathlessly reports data that means nothing and declares that the world is ending. Folks like you apparently suck it up like a Hoover.*** Hardly. I don't pay attention to the media, nor do I trust them. I was warning about this stuff LONG before it became a media issue. Search around, you'll find it (along with folks like you telling me I was a paranoid loon).
Originally Posted By barboy ///What struck me about the above situation is that someone apparently was in a situation where they had $18,000 cash, $5,800 owed on a credit card with a $14,000 limit, and chose to use all of the cash to buy a new car for someone else (their son), leaving himself with no cash. Then, when the bank lowered the credit limit to just above his current balance, Christmas shopping got canceled. That doesn't sound like a good way to handle money under any circumstances./// You beat me to it SD. At face value(maybe there are extenuating circumstances that would justify the purchase) a move like that looks terribly irresponsible. I would think paying down a credit card should come first before giving a son or daughter a luxury item that depreciates faster than housing in this day and age(in many cases cars for students are not essential items but more luxury in nature).
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<In the early 1930's, unemployment peaked at a "mere" 25%. I guess that means 75% of the folks back then were just fine. Right?>> Comparisons to the Great Depression are absurd. Which is pretty much par for the course with you. <<The shadow of the '30s looms over every economic downturn or crisis, no matter how modest. Pundits were quick to invoke the Depression as a cautionary model during the stock market crash of 1987, the bailout of the giant hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management in 1998 and the dot-com meltdown of 2000 and 2001. But there are vast differences between the 1930s and today. U.S. unemployment reached 25% during the Depression; last month it was reported at 4.8%. The international industrial economy was a shambles in the '30s. Today it is coming off a global boom. "I've been asked many times whether we will have another Great Depression," said David M. Kennedy, a Stanford University history professor and the author of "Freedom From Fear," a Pulitzer Prize-winning history of the Depression and World War II. "My standard answer is that we won't have that one again -- I'd be surprised to have one of that seriousness and duration. But that doesn't mean we wouldn't have a catastrophe we haven't seen before." Economists and historians say the most important difference between today's economic environment and the old days is the government's role. "There's a perception now that you don't stand around at the central bank and whack people with a ruler for making bad decisions," said Robert Brusca, chief economist at New York-based Fact and Opinion Economics. "Instead, you do something." Nothing demonstrates that as vividly as the Fed's orchestration of the takeover of Bear Stearns by JPMorgan Chase & Co. over the weekend. The deal staved off a possible Bear bankruptcy, which the central bank feared might traumatize financial systems worldwide. The resolution drew a stark contrast with the Fed's role in the 1930 collapse of the Bank of the United States, a New York institution largely serving Jewish immigrants. The failure was then the largest in U.S. history, and the Fed's inability to arrange a rescue by Wall Street banks -- including J.P. Morgan & Co., the predecessor to the "white knight" in the Bear Stearns case -- caused a cataclysmic loss of confidence in the entire national banking system. That fueled a panic that historians regard as a key cause of the Depression. The Fed's relative powerlessness in 1930 led directly to New Deal reforms that vastly expanded its authority. Some of the agency's new powers, such as its ability to lend directly to brokers and investment banks, were seldom or never used until the current crisis.>> Source: <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-depression20mar20,0,3709200.story" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/busines...00.story</a>
