Slashdot Mirror
Your Credit Score Isn't a Reflection of Your Moral Character. But the Department of Homeland Security Seems To Think It Is. (slate.com)
What kind of person racks up debts and doesn't pay them? Your credit score is an attempt to answer this question. A report elaborates: These important three-digit numbers summarize our statistical risk for lenders. The allure of the credit score is its clarity: It cuts through appearances and converts our messy lives into an easily readable metric. The difference between a score of 750 and 600 is obvious. One is an excellent bet for a lender to make; the other is not. On balance, credit scores have made borrowing more convenient, and fairer, for consumers. But the U.S. Department of Homeland Security wants to use credit scores for an entirely different purpose, one they were never built for and are not suited for.
The agency charged with safeguarding the nation would like to make immigrants submit their credit scores when applying for legal resident status. The new rule, contained in a proposal signed by DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, is designed to help immigration officers identify applicants likely to become a "public charge" -- that is, a person primarily dependent on government assistance for food, housing, or medical care. According to the proposal, credit scores and other financial records (including credit reports, the comprehensive individual files from which credit scores are generated) would be reviewed to predict an applicant's chances of "self-sufficiency." The proposal is open for public comment until Dec. 10. Setting aside the proposal's moral abdication when it comes to the needy, we should be troubled by another injustice: its abuse of personal metrics.
The agency charged with safeguarding the nation would like to make immigrants submit their credit scores when applying for legal resident status. The new rule, contained in a proposal signed by DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, is designed to help immigration officers identify applicants likely to become a "public charge" -- that is, a person primarily dependent on government assistance for food, housing, or medical care. According to the proposal, credit scores and other financial records (including credit reports, the comprehensive individual files from which credit scores are generated) would be reviewed to predict an applicant's chances of "self-sufficiency." The proposal is open for public comment until Dec. 10. Setting aside the proposal's moral abdication when it comes to the needy, we should be troubled by another injustice: its abuse of personal metrics.
Does this assume that the country from which the immigrant originates is sophisticated enough to have credit scores? Does it assume that an immigrant already in the US and applying for citizenship already has a work authorization and is building a US credit score?
TFS says nothing about "moral character".
Furthermore, no argument is even being made here that there is no correlation between credit score and likelihood of becoming a public charge. The writer just doesn't like the proposal.
There is a correlation.
Yesterday, we saw an article about China's "social credit" policy, and there was much outrage and gnashing of teeth and moral superiority. People were all like, "why do we do business with China?" and so forth.
Someone please tell me how this is different from China's social credit policies.
You are welcome on my lawn.
1) It's used because of the risk of blackmail. People in financial trouble (which is both a symptom and can be caused by bad credit) have a larger risk of this.
2) The score only attempts to calculate how much money they can make by loaning you money with interest. Unlike China, it's only focused on whether or not you can pay back what you borrow.
That said, any attempts to insert non-financial considerations into this should be resisted strongly.
But no, we shouldn't make DHS employees easier to blackmail.
If you routinely rack up credit card or other debts and then walk away from your obligations, I think that does reflect on your character.
What's next, demanding to audit tax returns as a condition of running for President?
For once I'm in agreement with something our government does
A form of profiling.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Your credit score (vaguely) indicates whether you earn a paycheck, are self sufficient and pay your bills. It answers: How likely are you to become somebody else's expensive problem?
Homeland Security doesn't want people coming to the US to become America's expensive problem.
Is there a correlation between credit score and being dependent on welfare? Yes, there is a negative correlation. As the credit score decreases, the likelihood that the person is on welfare increases.
So if as a matter of policy a country wants to take in fewer people who will be dependent on welfare, then credit score is a reasonable data point which could help with that.
I could understand a country making policy that they don't care whether the people they take in are dependent on welfare, in which case credit score perhaps shouldn't factor into their equation, but that's just a matter of policy; there's nothing wrong with using credit score or any other data point to achieve whatever policy goal you want.
In other words, argue the policy. Should we or should we not care about immigrants getting dependent on public welfare?
There are interesting moral and financial arguments here. But zeroing in on credit score specifically is a waste of time.
I think there is little connection between morality and credit score, although the idea of using a credit score as one component is not a terrible idea.
There is likely correlation and causation when comparing self-sufficiency and credit scores. If you have a high credit score it usually either means you have enough money/support to keep low debts and pay bills on time or it means that you have the awareness to know about credit scores, how they work, and -- even without a great deal of money/support -- can maintain a good one. Both of these things bode well for success when beginning anew in a foreign country or for a variety of other situations.
That said, if this is implemented I'm sure it will be implemented in some horribly unfair way. When all things are equal, do you let in someone without a credit score entirely or someone with a middling credit score? Do you give preference to someone who has a great credit score or someone who has never had an opportunity to really get one?
The US is moving toward authoritarianism, akin to China: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/1...
>Setting aside the proposal's moral abdication when it comes to the needy . . .
The United States is not a welfare teat for the "needy". Make applicants have a sponsor (which was formerly the case) who is responsible for the applicant not going on the dole.
Depending on where you live, it makes some sense to consider a person's credit score for immigration*. I could probably at this point throw in some joke about how if any other country used credit scores, Trump couldn't emigrate there because his taxes are being constantly audited so there's no real way to measure if he actually is self-sufficient or is just running a massive loan scam. The arguments about his taxes being too complicated is hilarious mostly because if they're too complicated for the IRS or other experts to understand, then they're inherently illegitimate. I guess if we held this as a standard, perhaps it'd be a good thing given how often immigration is bought by the rich.
* I don't actually believe in our current immigration system because it doesn't match our globalist capitalism trading platform--regardless of how much Trump has tried to personally counter it. The free trade of goods and services inherently means the free movement of people to engage in those services. Cut that off and you're creating an inefficiency in the market.
This is literally what credit scores are meant to do, determine the long-term financial risk for an individual. You basically can't emigrate to anywhere in the developed world without either proof of a job or proof of funds to support you and your dependents without relying on state welfare. This is simply extending the idea that even if you have a job or cash funds having massive amounts of debt or a history of living past your means might throw into question their sufficiency to keep you off the dole.
âoeSetting aside the proposal's moral abdication when it comes to the needy...â
DHS is not a charity organization.
I suspect the most hard-core criminals are outwardly polite.
Raping children is bad. Slate's Josh Lauer seems to think it's awesome, delightful, fun and amazing.
Most people would be horrified at the rape of children. An unspeakably evil act, an intensely painful and traumatising experience. Something that will usually stay with the child for decades if not life. A perverted mentality that accepts sexual transgression to feed its own bloated egotism and entitlement.
Yet, it seems that Slate's Josh Lauer thinks raping children is awesome.
_____
Note: I have not said that Slate's Josh Lauer has ever raped a child himself.
I'm just saying that to me it seems like he really thinks it's amazing.
Indeed, total flamebait.
The proposal (which may be bad or good, that's for another post) is:
Try to estimate the likelihood that the person will becime financially dependent on the taxpayers, by looking at their finances.
It's nothing about moral character. THIS proposal is about the financial cost to tax payers. How many financially dependent people we want to bring in is a related, though different, discussion.
Financial dependence isn't "moral character". My daughter is 100% dependent on me financially*. She has high moral character. She's four. The headline is crap.
I suppose someone *could* make the argument that having a habit of borrowing money and not paying it back is a moral weakness, but the authors of the proposal make no such statement. They argue that people who are financially a mess are more likely to become a drain on the tax payer.
* My four year old daughter regularly asks for jobs she can do to earn money for extra toys.
This seems to me a naively US-centric idea, that everybody on the globe should be strangled by debts the same way that among Americans is deemed "normal". In reality, most of the rest of the world population is not consuming and spending more than it can afford, thus can't be reliably "measured" by the history of its debts. Even avoiding the use of credit cards is not necessarily a sign of suspicious underground activities, elsewhere.
As usual, in China, everything is reduced to conformism,
and in the US, everything is reduced to money.
Other than that, you will only get one-sided answers (about how it's different) with a question that loaded.
What's with the editorializing in the headline? "Not a recfletcion of your moral character" is an opinion, not a fact.
And as long as we're sharing opinions: how is borrowing someone else's money and not paying it back NOT a reflection of your moral character?
There's a big green thing in NYC wearing a spiky tiara and holding up an ice-cream cone.
Remind me, what does the caption on that say?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Education time:
The inscription at the statue's base is neither law nor policy; it never was. You act as if it's a legal construct. It's not.
âoewould like to make immigrants submit their credit scores when applying for legal resident status.â
An immigrant coming to the US do not need to prove anything other than what is required for its VISA. This usually includes the work letter from your US hiring company and necessary supporting paperwork to prove you are a fit for the match and not just a random.
When you land in the US, your credit score is nil, because - you guessed - you did not existed for US until now. What your score is or was in your previous country is not relevant.
After you have been living in the US as an immigrant, with your SSN created, with your go ahead from the DHS allowing you to work in the country, and have received a few paychecks posted on your US bank account, you will then begin to show up on the credit bureaus lists, and after that, congratulations: you now have an US credit score. It starts the same way as of anyone would be.
Up this point, you are still an immigrant, and nothing is different from before.
Now, the day your company decides to sponsor your adjustment of residency to a lawful permanent resident with the so-called Green Card, is when your status is requested to change from immigrant to lawful resident, or legal resident as the text says. In order for them to do so, you have us to, at a minimum, one year to not screw yourself in the US, by overspending, not paying your bills on time, or not caring about how US financial systems work. Or maybe you are earning much less than you need to live in this country (or just sending too much of your earnings back to your home country) and screwing yourself in here.
With all that said, as a lawful resident and someone who went thru this process not so long ago, I see this as a good move from the government. Taxes are already enough to subsidize US born and raised people in need, you donâ(TM)t need to yank more from the tax payers to pay for someone elseâ(TM)s dreams if their dreams are actually nightmares.
The most hard-core criminals are usually psychopaths. An illness, that most of the time is really not how it's depicted on TV, where the person is simply unable to have empathy or generally mirror how somebody feels, unless they specifically enable it beforehand (according to recent studies). This leaves them unable to intuitively choose actions that don't harm others. But they realize that certain actions come back to bite them. So they do the only thing they can do (since it's impossible and extremely straining to always consciously enable empathy): They copy the social patterns, and robotically imitate them. Which often leads to that typical creepy uncanny valley behavior. But most of the time can come off as genuinely polite and well-mannered. Almost too well. I know because my brother has that illness. He's a real cringe-fest sometimes. Thankfully not a criminal ... AFAIK. ;)
This DHS/China scoring thing is not about criminals though.
This is only about power and domination. The specific act is almost irrelevant. It could be this, or it could be rape (which is also actually not about the sex itself, I have been told by multiple rape victims that I talked to).
I still don't get why some people are so obsessed with power and control though... Maybe it's the fear of losing grip on their world...
Poor people don't make good immigration numbers. It ends up a net negative overall. You can link your usual cherry-picked bullshit stats on how "immigrants totally pay more taxes!!" all you want. Doesn't change the actual facts.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic now, but do you know of any studies that support what you're claiming? I'm genuinely curious what the numbers show.
You are definately not sane
I said decent country for a reason. America isn't decent.
It will be when it does this.
Also, see the other reply. The fact you think a statue is law is hilarious.
That doesn't even remotely apply to modern days social climate. Not even slightly!
It's like all the gunburgers moaning about the 2nd amendment being part of the US identify and rights. Yeah, so was slavery.
They are called amendments for a reason. Subsequent amendments can nullify ancestors.
What's that, just had a mind stroke for coming out against guns despite being for this policy? Well shit, who knew there are sensible people that aren't behind the 2-party polarity bullshit? Shocking huh?
Also, fuck Statue of Liberty and its ideals.
There is compassion then there is downright idiocy!
Humans are not above natural selection and should NEVER strive to be.
We literally cannot afford it at the resource level. No, take your "1%" bullshit argument and run to the stars because it still doesn't matter. if we could be shipping resources around the planet easily we could still find a way. We don't, not because scummy greedy rich people, because everyone else doesn't give a shit and wants to get on with their lives. They don't want that burden. They shouldn't have to face that burden.
For the herd, not the species. It's tried and tested. Every successful species on the planet is here because of it.
would like to make immigrants submit their credit scores
If this is the case, it's not that big a deal. DHS (and other US agencies) have been rooting through foreigners records for for years. And once these people are in and under US legal jurisdiction, they fall under US privacy laws. Which is to say that our government can look at anything they damned well please. Welcome to America!
Have gnu, will travel.
This has long been the case with government security clearances. One of the top, it not most common, reasons people divulge classified information is because they have accumulated a lot of debts and can't pay them back. So they become susceptible to foreign agents who are willing to solve their financial problems.
The same is true in many other industries. People with a lot of debt/bad credit are much more likely to commit white collar crimes like embezzlement or be paid off to turn a blind eye. So HR departments routinely reject people with bad credit as being a bad risk. Would you hire some who's broke to guard the vault?
It may be unpopular, but it makes sense. If you are the type of person to walk away from obligations that you voluntarily committed to, then you seem to be the sort of person who won't respect a non-compete or non-disclosure agreement. If you're the type of person to take on too much debt and stretch yourself to the point of breaking, you're too much of a risk taker. Risk taking is good for some jobs, but not so good for bank tellers or airline pilots.
It's not 100% accurate of course. Nothing is. But in a market with less than full employment, if you've got two qualified applicants for a job, and one of them has made a lot of poor life choices leading to a really bad credit rating, which one are you going to hire?
Oh, come on. Inspirational poetry by random 19th century people must ALWAYS be government policy!
1. Slate is for open borders and pretty much every far left cause, only bested by Salon in bias of major outlets. Of course they'll object to anything designed to filter, restrict or vet immigrants. Especially on merit, despite the strict rules Canada has doing precisely that.
Take this sentence opening: Setting aside the proposal’s moral abdication when it comes to the needy. That's not about technology or misuse; the author is advocating specifically for taking in the immigrants least likely to have decent credit scores.
2. This seems more appropriate for reddit than Slashdot. It's not really a nerds- or a tech-focused issue. The focus of the article (other than that our obligation should be to provide unlimited access to those who may become a burden) is that any metrics are wrong because they de-humanize the situation. Which is precisely the point of the metrics, and allows us to handle larger volumes than otherwise, but Slate considers everyone a special case, so metrics are just wrong donchaknow.
Let's not overly politicize /.
In the play Shylock opines that Antonio is a "good man." Bassino, who he is talking to (or maybe talking to himself in front of) bridles at this, returning: "Have you heard any imputation to the contrary?"
The exchange reveals a fundamental difference in how the world is viewed. Those hundreds of years ago and now.
To the Trumpers, Republicans and Shylock a "good man" is someone who has the assets to cover his debts. If he can't he is by definition "not good."
To everyone else (as depicted by Bassino's outrage) a "good man" has other attributes besides wealth: honesty, law abiding, charitable, chaste, or whatever else you might find virtuous. Money doesn't come into it.
Anybody who thinks that the Trump controlled DHS is not equating net worth with character is simply dishonest, delusional, or just plain dumb. It is pointless to describe howTrump himself has walked away from debts many times and has done pretty well by it -- what matters to them is he has control of assets now. That makes him "good" in the eyes of himself and his MAGA-hat wearing followers. What he has done in the past doesn't matter.
Case in point -- a Saudi Arabian prince is implicated in a murder but gets a total free pass on it from Trump because of their financial arrangements. And not just at the national-interest level. Does someone want to argue that Trump's financial ties (and debt) to Saudi interests has nothing to do with it? I would really like to see that. Trump has declared that guy to be a "good man." You can do the same exercise as this with Putin.
Does someone think that the DHS chief that Trump selected is going to be of a different mind-set? I don't.
When was that written? When was social security and wellfare givaways passed? The Statue of Liberty did not offer a social welfare net that consumes most of the government budget. Immigrants had to fend for themselves if they came. Eliminate all the social welfare and open the borders. Sounds like a good plan to me.
In China, if you have a low score you can't get money from anywhere, and will probably end up under a bridge or something - maybe a work camp?
In the U.S., if you have a low credit score you can get money from any one of a thousand predatory lending outfits that exist to suck dry those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder.
So, it is pretty different despite similar measurement, Which is better? Harder to say.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When is the Patriot Act going to die? It needs to.
> you could take in an immigrant with a poor credit score who works like crazy, starts his own business and becomes a millionaire
And if you really even the summary you'd know such a person would pass the financial means test, because:
--
According to the proposal, credit scores and other financial records (including credit reports, the comprehensive individual files from which credit scores are generated) would be reviewed to predict an applicant's chances of "self-sufficiency."
--
I don't expect people to read the articles, but is reading the *summary* at the top of page too much to ask?
The moral Failure is thinking it is OK to do this to "immigrants" because it is OK to abuse immigrants.
Every bad thing, every obstacle to life improvement, every hatred-based action
will be visited upon ourselves if we allow it to go forward against others.
This kind of antipersonnel tactic may be effective in preventing a few people
from going somewhere, but if it is it will be universally adopted to stop anyone
and blow back upon the population. Especially in this right wing regime currently
remaking the government in its corporate image.
Credit rating is an arbitrary number that is a blunt instrument, based on
records with upwards of 80% innaccurate data, that is designed to only hurt
consumers of financial services, never to help them. That is you. Your credit rating
is a sword of Damocles, only there to scare you, only there to fall on you, and destroy your life.
So the idea is to only let people with money in? Treat people different, with different rights,
based on a financial incentive to the banks? Because only the banks get anything from
credit ratings. Only banks benefit from denying loans, charging usurious rates for low credit rated
customers, etc. It is by definition the most elitist oligarchic plan to limit immigration based on finances.
And let us remember this debate about immigration policy is separate from debates about
asylum policy. That is getting lost -- refugees mostly have nothing at all left. This seems like
a calculated maneuver to refuse the poor, and people from poor regions.
It is so bad that people even her in the USA look down on people with bad credit
like they have the plague or something. I understand credit rating is a factor in a lot
of hiring as well -- that should be illegal, or require written permission from the applicant.
To make it a government requirement for services that a rating be at a certain level
is a kind of discrimination from an Aldous Huxley book. Because realize the policies
perpetrated on the "outsiders" always get turned inward and used on whomever allows
them.
Is exactly why one should first and foremost be a libertarian.
if ( Big Government == Big Problems ) then
{
becomeALibertarian ( you );
}
else
{
beTheIdiot ( you );
}
Caution: Contents under pressure
Paying the electricity bill? Yes, the power plant would kill you any moment if they could.
Guess you missed Erin Brockovich.
An extremely good reason to own guns.
I do own guns, son. I own several.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I also haven't seen studies substantiating the opposite, but the effect of not screening financially is illustrated by this random datapoint: 70% of Somalian immigants in the Netherlands was living on welfare in 2017. Overall about 40% of immigrants from the period 2000-2010 was on welfare, versus 2% of the indigenous population. These and many more interesting statistics can be found at government statitics bureau: https://opendata.cbs.nl/statli...
It sickens me to think that a government entity gets to dictate or a minority of more fortunate humans who may come and go. The problem is not immigration. The problem is socialism. Socialism doesn't work with open boarders and free trade. It's a problem that should be dealt with by eliminating socialist programs of all kinds. The US redirects my money into the pockets of all sorts I don't agree with. From war machines to insurance companies to private business interests like the copyright cartels via laws that enable and then get backed up by violent thugs. We need to get rid of the boarder guards and let product and beings transit freely as they did in prior times [mostly]. I have no hope for the world, but I'll work toward fixing New Hampshire alongside thousands of other people who have moved here for that purpose alongside many natives here who support freedom over slavery.
Identity theft of those with stellar credit scores are on the rise. :|
News at eleven.
Man talk about a BS summary. What they are looking at doing is pretty crappy, but it is the piece of shit that wrote the summary that has the poor moral character as they are the ones associating a low credit score with poor moral character. Hint you dumb fuck, being poor doesn't mean you are evil
c6gummer is a lying nazi faggot of no value
This whole topic doesn't belong here. It appears to be about politics more than anything else.
Does my score have to be a 3 digit number? Can I knock it down to two digits? How? Is there a way to just permanently remove yourself from the database? Why not?
That's just a statue, made by a french man.
Artists make all kinds of sappy feel good messages that have nothing to do with the actual policy of the country.
It just makes people feel better and gives them something to point to to prove how good they are.
Many EU country don't have a credit score per see, and those who have, have incompatible systems. You can't compare them because they are built differently with different rules. That's not even touching that in some country that does not exists at all due to privacy question.
I can't speak for the US but in Germany as soon as you get a permanent address you will have a SchuFa Auskunft. It does not matter if you borrow or not.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Does your nation have a functioning education, legal and police system? Yes.
Can the person speak and write some English? Yes.
Was the person wanting to move to the USA able to pass some educational exams in their own nation? Yes.
Any police record in their own nation? Any police record in another nation?
Did they pay tax in their own nation?
Have they been to the USA in the past? Any problems when they stayed in the USA in the past?
Do they have a bank account to pay their way to the USA and then have enough money until they find work in the USA?
Have they been supporting banned groups in person in meetings? Joined political groups? Funded banned groups?
Been on social media a lot supporting banned groups for years?
Medical problems that US tax payers will have to consider? Infectious diseases? What is needed to support their long term medical care for decades?
How are other people from that nation doing in the USA as a community?
Would they later petition to bring a lot of extended family members into the USA? What are the later medical costs?
Have long term views that are totally incompatible with any type of democracy?
Work that out and select from the best people globally who will add real value to the USA.
Stop letting large numbers of random people in from totally failed nations and start selecting from the very best people globally.
A diversity of people who made and kept their wealth. Who are in good health. Who are educated. Who are not in banned groups and who are not criminals.
Need any other kind of workers? Use a short term guest worker system that has no link to later immigration.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Seriously? That's all of them. That's why they come here in the first place. California will give you $4,238 per month in cash and benefits if you show up at her southern border with a family of four. Illegal immigration for welfare is a lucrative endeavor.
This reminds me of Chris Rock, when the news about Marion Berry smoking crack came out. âoeWhat are mothers going to say, âDonâ(TM)t smoke crack, you wonâ(TM)t be anything?â(TM) The kid will be like, âI could be mayorâ(TM).â DHS is like âoeDonâ(TM)t be a deadbeat, you cannot be a trustworthy person.â The deadbeat is like âoeI could be presidentâ
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I hope one day USA will only have billionaires that washes their own underpants. âoeGodâ blesses you all, you lunatics motherfuckers!
Whether you pay back your debts on time or not very much is a reflection of your moral character.
Much hand-wringing about nothing.
Legal immigrants have always had to prove the ability to support themselves and follow laws (including contract law). Adding a check to their credit score is a trivial way to doublecheck this.
"The agency charged with safeguarding the nation would like to make immigrants submit their credit scores when applying for legal resident status. The new rule, contained in a proposal signed by DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, is designed to help immigration officers identify applicants likely to become a "public charge" -- that is, a person primarily dependent on government assistance for food, housing, or medical care. According to the proposal, credit scores and other financial records (including credit reports, the comprehensive individual files from which credit scores are generated)..."
Credit scores aside, this is not really that much different from what most countries with so much as a hint of government social programs ask of legal immigrants: does the applicant have enough financial support (bank account balances, for example, or a job offer) while getting set up in the US?
Even the most "welcoming" and "tolerant" progressives will get angry if random poor people enter their houses and start demanding money, food, shelter, and other "assistance." (Maybe the "assistance" requested involves sleeping with the homeowner's spouse or significant other, after all!)
That said, credit scores are metrics for how willing someone is to get entangled in the soulless materialist debt slavery hamster wheel that is modern life in the US; it makes a great metric if the sorts of people we want are the sorts who will grovel before the corporations, followed by "?????" and then "PROFiT!!!!"
most of the defaulted loans weren't on people's primary residences, they were on investment properties. That's what made the crash so bad. You had everybody and his grandma try to get into house flipping to make up for their pensions going *poof*. Those people were generally still working and had excellent credit. So they would have no problems borrowing the money.
The real trouble is that people couldn't afford to buy a house that'd been flipped 7 times and had $100k added to it's original, $200k actual value. Or worse to rent that house out for $3k/mo so the schmuck who bought it with his maxed out 401k could make their money back. The young'uns ("Millenials") just don't make as much as their parents (let alone their grandparents).
What made 2008 so nasty is that all those folks just walked away from the properties. Since they were mostly rentals and flippers they didn't go out of their way to keep them.
The part that's infuriating is that almost nobody talks about this. I only know about it because a few left wing news outlets covered it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You don't understand debt. You aren't thinking about it right.
Creditors just run the stats. If you have paid your debts in the past, then you are a safe bet, so they will give you lower rates. If you have not paid your debts in the past, you are a high-risk bet, so you get higher rates or no offers. They don't make a moral judgment of you at all. All they care about is whether or not you are likely to pay, and all they use to decide that is whether or not you have paid.
Potential landlords, same deal. Potential employers might want to know your debt and payment history for slightly different but similar reasons: people who can't pay their debts are probably irresponsible and will probably be irresponsible employees.
None of them are using credit score to determine honesty. They just want to know if you are a safe bet (based on hard numbers).
So not only is good debt-management a way of demonstrating how safe a bet you are, it also makes you wealthier.
1) If you want to start a small business, you must borrow funds to get it off the ground.
2) Having a car can, in some circumstances, open doors to higher-paying jobs (or any job at all). If you don't have the money, then you must borrow to get that car and then make the money to pay for it.
3) You need a place to live. Generally speaking, rent costs more than mortgage payments for equivalent living conditions, AND you get property value appreciation and some tax deductions on top of that. So by borrowing to buy a house or condo, you increase your level of wealth more than if you just rented.
Making these decisions wisely not only benefits you, but proves you are a safe bet to creditors, so they offer you lower rates.
You flee from debt because there is risk of drowning in it. That risk is only there if you manage your debt unwisely. Don't borrow for a car that is fancier than you need, nor for a second car, nor for a house that is more luxurious than you need, nor for other luxury items like entertainment systems, etc. Borrow for what you need to better your lot, and what you can afford to pay back, and nothing more.
Hmm, I found this article that references the 70% number, which also points to "figures from CBS:"
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
...but I couldn't find any such figures in their data that you linked. Maybe my search terms are just off or not politically correct enough, but why can't people ever cite their sources? Geez.
Headline: "Your Credit Score Isn't a Reflection of Your Moral Character. But the Department of Homeland Security Seems To Think It Is. "
Summary: Homeland Security is considering using credit scores and other financial records as a reflection of someone's _financial_ character, not their moral character.
Eh, wot? The US is not morally required to accept new welfare recipients. Yes, there's that Emma Lazarus poem... but it pre-dates the welfare system. The tired, poor, and hungry yearning to be free were expected to work their asses off or starve.
Z^-87439
from 1 to 100. And no, I was told by my banks that having NO data is not the best possible for lender, as it means they have no way to assess risk (remember : lender cannot see your outflow/inflow money in your account! Exception are only bank lending). In fact in my case they did not care since they knew I was solvent (they can see my inflow/outflow) but a random car seller would not be able to.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I went to read the language in the proposed rule because I had the same concerns as the rest of you. But the language specifically states that the DHS would have the ability to review the applicants âoeUS credit scoreâ if it existed. There is no language about attempting to generate a credit score for their prior possibly incomplete financial data from their home country. That would be a recipient for disaster and rife with bias. I actually feel better about the proposed bill after a more thurough review.
#readbeforeyoubitch
a social welfare net that consumes most of the government budget
You need to check your facts. Or stop believing Breitbart and Faux News.
It's the military that consumes 54% of the budget* Everything else pales in comparison to what we spend on the military.
You've been paying for Social Security and Medicare your whole working life. It goes into the Social Security Trust Fund. Would you be upset to learn that the Trust Fund has been so flush with money at times that Congress has "borrowed" from it, and has never paid those "loans" back?
*https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/
Not as hilarious as your reading comprehension skills. Where did I even mention law?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I'd be more than a little surprised with Kirstjen actually is able to pronounce her own name. And to be fair, she is the child of two parents who believed it was a good idea to name their child something which would cause her difficulties all through her life. This is an example of people who suffer extremely poor forward thinking and it is clear from many of their decisions that the people she learned from and set and example for her that she probably is quite short sighted. I'm laughing since I have a niece names Kjersti and even now that I speak that language "fluently", after 20 years, I still struggle with that name. Can you imagine poor Kirstjen's mother who is from Italian descent attempting to struggle through the Danish pronunciation of Kirstjen? And if you're not somewhat fluent in a Scandinavian language, then I promise you that you have no idea how to even start pronouncing either of those names.
... because in the 1990's, Clearwater was still so racist that it actually made sense. The unofficial reason was that the school district didn't want to pay for an extra school, so they bussed the ghetto kids to Clearwater, Dunedin and Countryside high schools and stationed full time, armed police officers on the campuses to "deal with the fallout". The police officers on all three campuses then began enforcement... yes enforcement of keeping all students on campus at all times because the people in wealthier areas didn't want the ghetto children roaming their neighborhoods. Almost all money that should have been used for education for the years which Kirtstjen attended was instead focused on enforcement, discipline and "feel good programs" to convince the people that things are so much better.
Another major issue is that her family chose to move to Clearwater Florida (I had the misfortune to suffer the same as a child). During her youth (she is three years older almost to the day than I am) there were several schools in the Clearwater school district. All of these schools during the eras which she attended them are famously awful. I mean, any parent who would move their children to Clearwater, Florida during that time were idiots and should be considered abusive. Let me set an example. There was a "ghetto school" which was called Greenwood which was shut down in her Junior year of high school. The official reason was to foster desegregation
This is where Kirstjen learned to administer. She learned that enforcement is preferable to education. She learned that pretty white girls from middle class families are worth more than ghetto kids and immigrants (even today Clearwater is highly segregated). She learned that people who speak Spanish are the enemy. Clearwater is a place where people go batshit crazy when they hear these awful people teaching their children Spanish. I was attacked in a restaurant for speaking Norwegian with my children there.
I will say that many people from Clearwater are very good people but are just plain ignorant. Clearwater is a cesspool of anger, violence and hate. It's an aggregation point for people of low ambition. There are a lot of great people with golden hearts who move their kids there hoping to move them closer to Disney, the beach and all the wholesome nature experiences they can get. And they don't care much about how the schools are. They don't consider the cultural problems.
There's even a systematic hate issue in Clearwater since almost all children in Clearwater are raised near the headquarters of Scientology and are taught how evil those people are. Scientologists march like soldiers through the streets in uniforms. It becomes the war of the ignorant against the ignorant.
If you sit in a restaurant in Clearwater and you listen to all the chatter, it's almost non-stop negativity cloaked in other forms like pity. You'll always hear things like "I really wish that poor girl well... heavens knows she needs it... but she is horrible and I hope she gets run over by a truck". You hear parents almost everywhere aggrandizing themselv
This is not the only thing that Homeland Security will be looking at to evaluate an application for admission to the US, but it is not an unreasonable thing for them to check. The "moral character" of the immigrant is not the only characteristic that concerns them. Many immigrants arrive in the US and go on public assistance almost immediately, especially families with children. We do not need any more wards of the state in the US. We need productive citizens and residents who will feed themselves and contribute to society. If this helps identify people who are responsible financially and pay their debts, it is a good thing.
It is exactly the same thing.
1. Credit score helps predict if you will default on debts.
2. Credit score helps predict if you will default on social contract and demand free stuff.
Open immigration cannot exist in a welfare state.
Libertas in infinitum
there are NO good reasons to own guns, only bad ones
So, the logic behind this new provision apparently goes as follows:
"Before we permit you to become a resident or citizen of the USA and are allowed to live, earn and spend money there, you must demonstrate a history of fiscal responsibility in the USA via your US credit scores.
"Of course, since foreign credit scores will not generally be considered, you must first actually live, earn and spend money in the USA in order to build up your US credit scores."
Who came up with this nonsense? Joseph Heller?
Oh no? It isn't being used to measure "moral character", just fiscal responsibility. The only problem I see is based on my assumption that not every country has a solid credit rating system. I don't even like ours.
I just got denied credit for a big purchase. On the rejection letter they listed the reasons I am not a good candidate: I paid off my mortgage in full and have no mortgage debt. I pay off my credit cards each month and carry no balance. We wouldn't want to let creeps like me into the country!
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
i usually don't do this but this is me keeping to my word ,testifying to the good works of the hack group QUADHACKED @ G M A I L . C O M . they helped me fix my credit . i had history of late payment, had repossessions, inquiries and few collections i acquired on my downtime while i was struggling. this affected my finances so bad i had blemishing lurking on my report for years . i started tackling each one buy one, and on one occasion i paid $5000 once in clearing a debt and even pay advances for some. this didn't move my score to any reasonable significance, as i proposed and needed . i was seeking a mortgage loan and needed over a +100 units in credit score increase .then i met this hacker QUADHACKED@GMAIL.COM . He helped me dispute some, successfully replace them with good trade-lines that had positive effect on my credit score in just week .I was left amazed, i promised i will share on few blogs if he could help me with this . of course he did and helped several others i recommended to him. hence i'm sharing his contact email address which you can send a message of the credit repair services you're seeking and other related ethical hack jobs.
contact email
Q U A D H A C K E D _at_ G MA I L . COM