DISQUS

They should not be surprised, much less devestated, that they are being declined for a mortgage. They will have NO INCOME - all they have is a business plan for a new business. It doesn't matter if they had a successful business before- for all intents and purposes they are closing it and moving to an entirely new area to start an entirely new business with all brand new clients.

If it was a stand-alone business that could be run from anywhere, the bank would consider that historical income. But it's not like they own a manufacturing company which is being managed by a third party. After they move they will lose all their clients and will no longer receive any more income from that business. They are starting from scratch. Which happens to be very risky, especially in this economy.

As a banker, there is no way we would give a mortgage to somebody who is about to quit their job and try to find another one - so why would we give one to people who are doing something even MORE risky. It generally takes over a year for businesses to become profitable. Giving mortgages to people doing what your relatives are trying to do is one thing that led to the mess we're in now.

Sorry for the rant, but it's like bankers can't win no matter what.

And I am TOTALLY for the government offering more aid and cheaper aid to those willing to obtain a degree in math, engineering, the sciences, or computer technology. Not just so those people can have higher salaries, pay more taxes, and be more likely to pay back their loans, but because this country needs to stay competitive in those fields - and we aren't.

I mostly agree with the article, sans sarcasm. The reason tuition has ballooned like it has is largely because of government subsidies. Schools will do anything they can to absorb the billions of dollars being passed out every year by Uncle Sam - which means continually raising tuition to put it out of the reach of most Americans.

So while I think some of these govn subsidies are totally justifiable, there should be limits, not the least of which should include graduating in a timely manner and maintaining good grades. And schools whose tuition is paid mostly by govn aid should be held accountable and regulated as to how they use their tuition dollars and how often they raise tuition.

In the department where I used to work they finally did away with all gift giving for birthdays. They had been doing group gifts for evern employee for years, as it was a small tight knit group, but as the department grew it became too much, too often. Plus, the salary discrepancy in that place was large, and people who made more resented the obligation to contribute more--many times those who made the least wouldn't contribute or would only put in $2, but the problem was most of the gifts were for those employees, as there were more of them.

In my new department no one takes up donations for anything, and I love it! I don't want crappy random gifts, and I don't want to give them either.

I disagree with you a bit about the medical funds and time spent keeping very sick people alive. It's hard to advocate letting even the sickest children die, so let's consider the issue in terms of old people.

Few people would advocatethat society (i.e. each and every taxpayer) spend $20 million dollars on a series of surgeries to keep a 98 year old car crash victim alive. But where's the line? What about spending $5MM or $2MM? I think it helps to consider what the sick person would be willing to spend if he/she actually had to pay for the medical care, even assuming even that they had vast financial resources. Say that 98 yr old actually had $20MM in the bank. Do you think he/she would rather blow it all to potentially stay alive for another year, or go ahead and die and leave all that money to family and/or charity? Almost any rational person would choose the latter.

If people had any idea what their medical treatments actually cost, few would ever be willing to pay for many of them - which of course would drive down costs. But instead the government and insurance companies cloud the whole system and pay for the excess. I dont' think they should do that except in very select cases. And it's not just about the crazy costs of keeping people alive who should simply be allowed to die. I also don't want my insurance premiums to continue to skyrocket so that millions of people can opt for expensive lifetime medications to prevent things like allergies and indigestion just so they can keep their pets and live off fast food.