Jer.L

Ok, this is really getting strange. In October I bought a used 2010 Nissan Murano for 27K. I put down just over 6% and had no trouble getting approval for the loan. (Loan rate is 6.2%) Dealer showed me the approval letter, said score was 715. Before getting this car loan, I had a car loan and never had a late payment for 4 years, and then in 2011 I was able to get approved for a 7K loan for a 84 Corvette from Navy Federal. So 2 car loans at the same time no late payments.

I got a Capital 1 Visa with a $300.00 limit, 16 months ago,and now it has been raised to $1,200.00 I got a Navy Federal Visa with a 6K line of credit. Used about $4K on appliances and sewer work, paid off 2K on it in 4 months. Now the balance is less than 2k. So, 3 credit cards no late payments in 2 years, 2 car loans, no late payments in 6 years. No credit card is near 40% of balance.I have a Military Star card with a 3,100 line of credit, balance $221.00. Again no lates, and I almost always pay the statement balance on each account or triple the monthly payment.

Before all of this I had got back from Iraq and had to quit work while waiting for a VA claim, so I had 3 negative reports on my credit report. Closed all of those by paying them off, me contacting the agency and making payment agreements. That was in 2005-2007.

So I apply for a Lowes card, and the denial letter gives me a 430 Fico score. Reason? Delinquent accounts, too many apps in the past 6 months (car loans and applied for 2 credit cards) and not enough time on accounts. I had applied for a Guitar Center card, and a Lowes card before that..

I figure I'll wait until Dec and see what happens next.

But why the vast difference in scores? Car dealer shows 715, Lowes (GERCB) shows 430, and Guitar Center,(Capital 1) (Who I have an account with no lates in 13 months) shows 599

Ok, I was off work waiting for VA disability for 13 months and as a result my credit score suffered. I also had 2 judgments placed while I was working that I was never served papers for, Both of those are paid off. I had a car loan with Ford Credit had some late payments 3 that were 60+ but they never put the car out for repo. I bought a car with a co-signer over 2 years ago and I have had 2 late payments in 2 years. One was my fault and the other was the banks fault. I made a double payment and the bank posted the extra payment to the balance.

So, last year I was looking around and saw a 1984 Corvette for sale so I applied for a loan with my bank. I got a call 10 minutes later that I was conditionally approved and had to verify some information and then later that day they called me and said that the loan was approved. With no money down and for a 3 year term. I asked the person in the loan department if it was rare to make a loan on a 1984. She said, ordinarily it would he out of the question, but there is a NADA value book for Corvettes and we were able to see the value so we made the loan." My interest rate was 13.5% and she said that part of that was my credit score and the rest was that they wanted to get the money back as soon as possible. She looked over my credit score and said after 12 on time payments I could refinance the loan down to the standard used car rate of 5.5% Keep in mind, I got the pre-approval in less than 15 minutes. Once I gave the bank the VIN and dealer number the loan was approved.

So now I have 2 car loans out, and a overdraft line of credit loan, and my FICO score has dropped even more! It used to be at 633 and now it is at either 576 or 611 depending on who runs it. Also on 2 of my credit reports the judgements are shown as not paid. One report says judgement A not paid, and the other says judgment B not paid and judgement A paid. I've been trying to get this corrected for 2 years. I just gave up on that.

Just to see my score I applied for a Fingerhut line of credit and got denied! That's where I got the 576 score from.

My debt to income ratio is about 11% total. Is there anyway that this will improve itself over time?

I am taking out a secured card from my bank and the card reports to the 3 big ones and converts to a regular card in 12 months.

Anyone with half a brain knows that they are going to have to raise it soon. What is going to happen to the GOP members that vote to raise it? What is going to happen to the Speaker? Will the TEA party go nuts and declare war on them?

It's going to be fun to watch for sure. And if they somehow DON'T raise it? Well, let's just say that people thought that 2008 was bad? It will be a cakewalk compared to 2011.

I had a judgement placed on my credit report for an account that I had paid off (Providian No matter what I sent to the law firm that did not help. Even a letter from Providian that stated account closed by customer, balance ZERO.) They got a blanket judgement against me. So I went ahead and paid it. I had another one that was put on by the IRS caused by my ex-wife. That was paid in full also. These all happened when I was waiting for the VA to approve my disability claim and had no income. so I drained my 401K.

I have checked all three of my reports. If you look at Equifax it lists the IRS paid. If you look at Trans-Union it shows the IRS open and the other one paid. And if you look at Experian it shows the IRS open and the other paid.

So depending on what report a creditor pulls they think that one is open and the other is paid. I showed a bank rep all three and she said there is no doubt that they are all paid.

So, I understand that these will be on my report for 7 more years. Does it matter if they are paid, do loan officers take that into account? Since then I've been able to get a car loan. And overdraft for my checking. But can't get a credit card, and had a real hard time getting an apartment to rent.

Am I just done until 2019?

BTW I have submitted disputes and WON each of them. A year later the reports are still wrong. And there are still 2accounts listed that are not mine. I've won 2 disputes on those, and they are still there.

Didn't watch it, but I read some of the text and heard a few clips of it. I know that there was some talk of religion in it, and that he asked people to pray. My question is this.

"Where was his prayer rug?" Was it on the stage or what?

The guy is a muslim right? So did he actually take off his shoes and face Mecca??

Steve King R Iowa was speaking on the floor yesterday and he PRAISED Speaker John Boehner for his willingness to tell lies. Here is the quote...

"I would make the point that the leader and the Speaker have established their integrity and their mendacity for years in this Congress, and I don't believe it can be effectively challenged, and those who do so actually cast aspersions on themselves for making wild accusations."

Is he telling the truth? What he is really saying is that the Speaker tells a lot of lies.

Or is he just using a word that he does not know the meaning of... for those of you that don't...

Definition of MENDACIOUS

: given to or characterized by deception or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth <mendacious tales of his adventures>

— men·da·cious·ly adverb

— men·da·cious·ness noun

Definition of MENDACITY

1

: the quality or state of being mendacious

2

: lie

The Republicans have read the Constitution on the floor, and to appease their tea party backers, they are going to now require that EVERY bill put before the Congress has to be proven to be legal by showing what the Constitution allows.

The Constitution gives power to "Raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of money to that use for more than 2 years." It also states that the government can "Build and Maintain a Navy." and also to make "Rules for the Government and Regulation of land and Naval Forces."

Under the strictest interpretation of the Constitution the Air Force would be Un-Constitutional. Because there is no mention of it in the Constitution.

The Army and Navy could stay, but using the same strict guidelines that they want to apply to the Health Care Bill, we would need to get rid of the US Air Force. Because there is NO provision for maintaining an Air Force in the Constitution.

Progressive Constitutionalists argue that the Constitution is a living document and changes and evolves with the country. They say that if there were aircraft that could be used for defense when the framers wrote the constitution that they would have included an Air Force.So the constitution has evolved with the country. Just like we were able to make armed car-jacking a federal offense by using the power of the interstate commerce laws since cars are made up of parts from many states. So a car is really a product of interstate commerce.

Of course using this logic you could argue that the government has the right to enact the health care bill. Since that cannot be allowed, they decry the arguments that it is a living document. No, it must be specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

According to the new rules put on by the GOP, is the Air Force going to be gone?? Remember, the USAF is NOT part of the Department of the Army anymore, they are a seperate branch, with their own chain of command, rank structure and regulations. So you can't wuss out and say that they are a part of the Army.

And if they make an exception for that, then what is the next one they will make??

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, first introduced in 2001 by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), initially received bipartisan support.

The version of the DREAM Act considered by the Senate on Saturday was more narrowly tailored in an effort to appeal to moderate Democrats and Republicans. Those eligible for conditional legal status must have come to the U.S. before the age of 16, be under the age of 30, have lived in the country for five consecutive years, pass a criminal background test and have a high school diploma or GED equivalent.

Under the bill, children who were brought to the country illegally who go to college or sign up for the military for two years could receive permanent residency after 10 years.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46573.ht...

The DREAM act was introduced by a Republican, and now they are against it. Why?

The McCain campaign, ran by a very savvy man, Steve Schmidt had every chance and all the money that they needed to vet Mr. Obama. Surely if he were not born in the US then they would have brought that up, since it would have removed him from the race.

So why didn't they do that? There would be NO WAY that a child could have entered the United States without a passport, and a Visa, and a WHO Shot Record. Yet somehow there is no record of him, his ALIEN father and his mother EVER entering the US when he was an infant or a small child.Immigration records are kept forever. It would have not been a herculean task for a presidential campaign to search these records. Not when you have people in every state and millions of dollars to spend. Why didn't they do that??

Also, do you people not realize that in the United States citizenship comes from the mother, and not BOTH parents?

And that according to US Law a "Natural Born CItizen" is a person who did not obtain citizenship by naturalization. That is why Henry Kissinger, Madeline Albright and a handful of cabinet members could have never become President in the Presidential Succession Act where they were 4th in line for the Presidency.

* 32 minutes ago

* - 4 days left to answer.

Additional Details

No conspiracy, I am just asking why the McCain camp did not find this all out IF IT WAS TRUE. Which I don't believe it is.

The latest NBC Wall Street Journal Poll shows Obama is on the rise with most Americans, in fact when it comes to personal feelings of Americans on the President, a whopping 72% of respondents had a favorable view of him. Larger numbers that Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and (gasp!) Ronald Reagan at this point in their Presidencies! And by golly, even larger than Sarah Palins favorability ratings.

His approval rating is still at 45% which is just about where Reagan was at this point in his first term. But that number has not dropped either.

Does this mean that a lot of people on Y/A are really out of touch?

Source:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487048...

The tax cut plan that the GOP forced on us, will cost us over 900 Billion dollars, it is not funded in the budget like the stimulus was used to pay for the middle class tax cut. The GOP forced the extension of the Bush tax cuts and held 97% of Americans hostage to get them. So we are borrowing MORE money now.

We borrow from more than China, we borrow from Iran also, in fact the "Oil producing member nations of OPEC" now hold a lot of US debt, the treasury won't say how much, but they are pretty high on the list.

So was all that talk about reducing the deficit just smoke and mirrors? John Boehner, and McConnell say that they are not going to remove earmarks from the way that the gov't spends. SO now we are even more in debt than we were when you went to bed last night.

Is this a good thing to do when we are in dire straits already? 900 Billion more foreign debt, that could rise to a TRILLION based on future interest rates?

I've got a friend that lives in France and works for General Electric, he is retired from the USN. Though he is an American and works for an American corporation he gets all the standard benefits that any French citizen gets Like 5 weeks paid vacation,shorter work week et. al; and unlimited paid sick time (As long as a doctor deems it needed) and the rest. We were talking about the massive demonstrations that they were having in Paris and other places. He said, after living here for a few years I slowly began to realize something...

"In the USA people are afraid of the Government, but in France, the Government is afraid of the people."

Granted that is just his opinion, but what scenario do you think is best for the people?

Keep all of the France bashing out of the answers please, just answer the original question. Is it better for the people if they are afraid of the government, or is it better if the government is afraid of the people.

I'm pretty certain that the dems are not any threat to the Tea Party I think that the GOP is more of a threat to them I'll start with.

So, here it is just 24 hours since the "Shellacking" and already the Tea Party winners are saying that they are going to change the Republican party. I am wondering, are they all naive, or is this wishful thinking on their part? They are against bailouts, I get that, so how are they going to work with the new speaker, who got more campaing contributuions from Wall St, and those banks than any other member of the house?

Are they going to demand that the "Pledge to America" eliminates earmarks? Because now as it is written, it does not.

Finally do they really understand what they are facing in the steadfast GOP core? Did they read what Trentt Lott said about them??

Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), now a D.C. lobbyist, warned that a robust bloc of rabble-rousers spells further Senate dysfunction. "We don't need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples," Lott said in an interview. "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them."

But Lott said he's not expecting a tea-party sweep. "I still have faith in the visceral judgment of the American people," he said.

And this is Trentt Lott here, not a novice in politics! (Maybe he is right about the American people, after all Angle, O'Donnel, and Miller all went down in flames, and they were the most extreme) Firorna also lost and the GOP lost a seat in Colorado;

The question is this. Once they get to DC and see the corporations that lined up to donate to Republicans like the Speaker, are the Tea Party members going to stand up and turn up the heat, even when corporate interests are at stake? Or will they realize just how mcuh money they can be in line for and fall in line??

The liberals, with the long hair, and from the city that gave us Nancy Pilosi legalized pot, and the Grateful Dead beat the tar out of the boys that used to be owned by W. Add he even threw out the first pitch the other night?

Is it a sign?

Who was it that gave the information about the bomb plot, and provided the tracking numbers? Was it a Muslim?

It must be riveting. (Because even when he was told that the country was being attacked on 9/11/2001) George W Bush could not tear himself away from it for 7 minutes.

Is it one of the best books ever??

I read a lot of posts on here and people are talking about buying a new DSLR, but don't you realize that you can get a DSLR that is a professional camera for less than the new point and shoot DSLR that they make today? You can buy a used D-2 or 20D for less than $700.00 in excellent shape, you can buy a used D-1X in excellent condition for less than $400.00. The advantage of these cameras are numerous, but the biggest one is the amazing quality thanks to the large CCD. Also since these were usually owned by pros they are well taken care of because that is how these guys make their money.

I have 2 Nikon D-1, one is an H that was used by the AP in Boston, and the other is a X that was used by AP in Los Angeles. They both still have the inventory stickers on them.

So, why not consider a used DSLR that is built a lot better over a new camera?

October 8, 2004

WASHINGTON – President Bush and his vice president conceded yesterday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, trying to shift the Iraq war debate to a new issue – whether the invasion was justified because Hussein was abusing a U.N. oil-for-food program.

Whenever I come on Yahoo answers (or most other internet boards) I constantly hear (Or see) liberals being referred to as "Libtards." Or some other equally stupid assertion is made by those on the far right about "Liberals hating America, et al."

Yet when I go out in public, I have never ever heard a liberal or someone that is thought to be a liberal ever called a "Libtard." I've never witnessed any sort of confrontation or degrading of someone, even if they were wearing an Obama t-shirt.

If the liberal left is so re-vlled, then why are they not getting trashed in public like they do online? I live in WNY, and it is hardly a liberal paradise here. Republican county executive for the past 12 years, Republican congressman in the 26th for 20+years so.

Any ideas of why no one is trashing libs in public?

The Taliban visited the White House and walked away with 43 million dollars in aid. We knew how evil these people were, we knew that there were terror training camps that they let operate. Why would we aid them??

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3556

Even if the Bush administration had not been dissuaded by moral considerations, it should have been by purely pragmatic concerns. There was already ample evidence in the spring of 2001 that the Taliban was giving sanctuary to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network that had bombed two U.S. embassies in East Africa.