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.

Comments

Assumtions galore

[magarity]

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?

Re:Assumtions galore

[Anonymous Coward]

So nice you would like to run the United States government like a business. Perhaps we should create a predicted profit/loss statement on each citizen at birth, and ship out to other countries anyone who isn't predicted to be in the black for our country.

Re:Assumtions galore

[Freischutz]

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?

Look on the bright side, this only lasts until you become a citizen. Once you are a US citizen the reflection of the content of your character that is your credit history becomes so completely unimportant that even a man who has bankrupted six casinos, welshed on god knows how many loans leading to him being treated as a leper by the entire world banking system except Deutsche bank and Russian Mafia owned money laundering factories masquerading as banks, a man who has been convicted of money laundering, cheating people out of their hard earned money with a fake university and is currently being investigated over his fake charitable foundation can become president. If DJT's credit history was an accurate reflection of the content of his character he should be a cloak wearing Sith lord with, dead eyes, pale wrinkled skin like a Shar-Pei that can lift tanks whit his mind and shoot lighting from his fingertips and not the mere sleazebag hack that he is.

Re:Assumtions galore

[Gavagai80]

Many people have no credit scores simply because we don't borrow. I have no credit score because I've never felt like spending more than I have. But that actually does identify me as poor and as a bad consumer -- the middle class and wealthy always have debts for their houses and cars, whereas the responsible poor may never experience debt.

Re:Assumtions galore

[Baloroth]

Never borrowing is not really a good sign of financial responsibility. Aside from the fact that using credit cards that you pay off every month actually gives you money (through rewards programs*), borrowing money for expensive purchases you could not otherwise directly afford can allow increased financial opportunities you'd not otherwise have. Taking out a mortgage to buy a house in an area where prices are rising, then selling it later. Or taking out reasonable amounts of student loan debt to get a degree that allows you to find better paying jobs. Even taking out a loan for a car allows you to take jobs you'd otherwise not be able to get to at all.

*You could argue that if people didn't use credit cards, everything would be cheaper (since merchants wouldn't have to pay credit card fees) and so it's a net negative for consumers. While that may be true, given credit cards do exist and are widely used, not using them yourself to gain rewards is financially irresponsible, since costs are the same to you whether you pay cash or not.

Re:Assumtions galore

[l0ungeb0y]

How American to espouse hate and a smug sense of superiority rather than to look to ways to make each and every citizen as productive and prosperous as possible. Nope, let's kick them out or lock them up, because that's so easy and working to fix our borken society s just too damned hard. Fuck you you fascist piece of shit. You are the cancer, not the poor, or disadvantaged you seem to hate so much, and help propagate with your ignorance and hate

Re:Assumtions galore

[ShanghaiBill]

I have no credit score ...

Yes you do. You may not know what it is, but if you are an adult in America, you likely have a credit rating.

... because I've never felt like spending more than I have.

That is NOT the only reason to have credit. You should apply for credit and establish a track record of handing it responsibly. Otherwise, someday you are going to want to borrow to buy a house or pay for your kid's college, and the answer is going to be "no".

Get a credit card with a $500 limit. Use it. Set auto-pay from your bank account so you never miss a payment and never pay a cent in interest. After a year, ask the issuer to raise the debt limit.

If you want to be successful in life, you need to learn basic money management. If you have no credit line, you are doing it wrong.

Re: Assumtions galore

[backslashdot]

Except the founders of some of our best tech companies came from welfare or refugee families. In other words, if say we didnt allow Steve Jobs biological dad into the country because he was muslim we wouldnt have Apple. If we didnâ(TM)t like muslims from dirt poor third world countries like Bangladesh one of the parents of Youtubeâ(TM)s cofounders wouldnâ(TM)t have been in. If we didnt like refugees we wouldnt have allowed Sergey Brinâ(TM)s family in. If we didnt like people whose family would go on foodstamps we wouldnâ(TM)t have allowed one of Whatsappâ(TM)s cofounders into the country. And these are just the ones I know about offhand.

Re:Assumtions galore

[Jack9]

> Aside from the fact that using credit cards that you pay off every month actually gives you money (through rewards programs*),

That's usually not true. Credit cards are not the only things that influence your credit. Car loans, private loans, etc. There are no rewards programs there either.

Re:Assumtions galore

[Memnos]

Hmm, I read the AC's comment as satire, along the lines of "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift. In other words, I think he may have been agreeing with you. No matter, since it's the internet, proceed immediately to the verbal evisceration phase.

Re: Assumtions galore

[edris90]

Credit is gambling. The Creditor is the house . the can aqquire money they didn't earn by loaning out what they , and receiving back more they had. It's not an honest profession. If They want more money if they can work for it pretty soon things that people intrinsically need. I'm so close to loan out money with interest rates are essentially the worst of characters because they don't work for their money they just found a clever way to leech it off other people's efforts. we have empowered the worst traits of the least capable of our people. The person borrowing money is also guilty of dishonesty because they are trying to access things are circumstances they have not yet learned and thus do not deserve. Also a Mark of poor character.

Re: Assumtions galore

[edris90]

it was never supposed to be about financial responsibility supposed to be about honesty and personal integrity.those who to borrow are not willing to acquire things honestly after they have earned and paid for them and are willing to risk not keeping their word due to unforeseen edible circumstances to get what they want now. Creditors seek to make money through other people's hardships and bad judgment instead of through their own labor. Person who uses a lot of credit is going to be more proud to letting other people cover their mistakes. A person of integrity doesn't allow themselves to use credit because they know they haven't earned whatever it is there after yet. And therefore willing to sacrifice to maintain honesty

Re:Assumtions galore

[PeeAitchPee]

You are not identified as poor -- you are identified as a risky borrower because you have no history of borrowing money and paying it back. That's all your credit score means. The next time you buy something like a TV or refrigerator, try using the "12 months same as cash" / 0% financing option if it's available, pay the item off over a year (at no additional cost to yourself) and then check your credit score -- you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Re:Assumtions galore

[squiggleslash]

No, because that's not what's being asked. I did a double take when I read it too.

Generally speaking, immigration in the US has three stages: some form of temporary residency (examples would be a sponsored work visa, or a student visa), followed by permanent residency (a green card, given to people who want to live here for the rest of their lives), followed by citizenship.

The last is often thought of as the "easiest" to get because it just requires a test and a swearing in, but in reality it's the hardest because it needs the applicant to pass the other two hurdles first. The first is relatively easy, the second requires either a lot of money (hard for most of us), an employer who can demonstrate you're significantly more talented in a specific field than normal (harder than it sounds, this isn't the H1-B "Can't find anyone who isn't asking for a six figure salary we can't afford" test, though Melania Trump got in this way, so there's that), or marriage/family.

Before anyone points out otherwise, it's occasionally the case, though rare, that someone will immediately apply for a green card without spending any time in the US with which to get a credit record. My mother would be an example, I sponsored her green card shortly after I got my citizenship. But that's relatively rare, and means the information will be absent when the immigration authorities make a determination (so they'll have to ignore it), not that they'll divide by zero and dump a corefile.

Back to the proposal: What they're proposing to do is modify the test between first and second.

Now, the summary claims they're introducing a new "moral" test, but that's actually bullshit. Part of the green card requirements is that you're going to be able to support yourself, there's no risk you'll end up on government anti-poverty programs, and typically they send a stern letter to your sponsor making it clear they will be on the hook if you turn out to be a deadbeat. How enforceable that is is another question, but the principle - you should be able to support yourself if you want permanent residency - isn't new. And, to be honest, it's not even a bad one.

So... is using your American credit score, calculated on the basis of several years of living in the US, going to answer that question - notably whether you're capable of supporting yourself? By itself, no, but it certainly is reasonable for a government determining whether someone should be allowed to live here permanently should use information from your credit score as a part of that determination. If you're not paying your debts, then there's a high risk you'll not support yourself.

There are many concerns - punishing asylum seekers for seeking asylum by permanently stealing their children and placing them in torture camps being the most obvious (and to you shitty apologists itching to claim that because ICE separated a handful of families, suspected of child trafficking, during the Obama regime, this means it's normal or Obama's fault that the Republican regime has used it instead to deter asylum seekers by doing it to literally thousands of refugees, I sincerely hope you all die in the most painful way possible, you are utterly shitty people and the world would be better without you) - I have about the US immigration system right now. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with this proposal. It makes sense. Immigrants should be self sufficient. Using a credit score as a part of a determination for that is a perfectly reasonable way to help ensure that.

Re:Assumtions galore

[gweihir]

It is probably just "we have failed spectacularly at our job and inconvenienced and assaulted (children being groped, for example) a lot of people, but we now have this one great idea, so please let us continue for a while".

Re:Assumtions galore

[Idarubicin]

I have no credit score because I've never felt like spending more than I have.

I have a credit score - a rather good one - but I've never spent more than I have. One does not have to carry debt to have a credit history.

Remember that a person is also being extended short-term credit even when they are paying off their balance in full every statement period. And that's not just the case with use of credit cards (which remain the easiest - and sometimes only - way to make purchases or payments in some situations). Thing about utilities like gas, water, electricity, cable, telephone, (non-prepaid) cell, internet...if you're billed at the end of the month after you've used the service, then you're being extended credit--and in many cases the status of those accounts will be reflected in your credit report.

Re:Assumtions galore

[Kjella]

Never borrowing is not really a good sign of financial responsibility.

It depends on how and why, if you're living in a rented apartment in a big city where your daily needs are met by public transportation there's no inherent reason you should have a loan. Yes, you could try to game credit cards but it's a hassle and the time and effort it takes could probably be spent on other cost cutting measures too like taking advantage of sales, cooking your own food, better maintenance of things you own and so on. Taking out a loan to speculate in property value is certainly possible, but the only guaranteed savings is being your own landlord. Would you really sell your house, even though it fits your needs and you've spent years furnishing and customizing it simply because you think prices have peaked? I doubt that, so the vast majority sit through both the ups and downs.

Loans that are proper investments with a ROI or long lasting items you essentially "write off" in your own bookkeeping make sense, like you're buying a car to drive for the next ten years but it has to be paid today. A mortgage in the "safe zone" of the property value (<60% around here) for a low risk customer should have a <1% post-inflation interest, that's a small price for having the money now rather than later. What I don't understand are the people who owe like 1-2 paychecks, zero safety buffer and pay >10% interest. In all but the most dire circumstances I'd cut back enough to get out of that red zone, both for my own peace of mind and the savings. But I've got a friend who's constantly living on credit and he's got this huge urgency of things he'd like to spend money on and is only waiting for the paycheck to come in. I simply think he doesn't worry, tomorrow's problems can be fixed tomorrow.

Re:Assumtions galore

[Anonymous Coward]

> Never borrowing is not really a good sign of financial responsibility.

This is the opposite of truth. Never having debts means you can take opportunities since you're not pinned by debt, and are behold to no-one.

You only take debnt on when you have no other option, for a specific purpose. If never needed, don't take it.

Re: Assumtions galore

[ColaMan]

I disagree Noah.

In essence with loans and credit cards you are borrowing money from your future self to use now.

Seeing as we don't have a time machine to collect payments from you-in-the-future to give to you-right-now as a lump sum, we have banks and such to help facilitate this, and yes, they take their cut because they provide a service.

The test of character is between future-you and you-right-now. Right now, you hope that future-you will pay up so that you can buy that house, or whatever. If future-you doesn't pay up, you're being dishonest to yourself because they made an agreement with you-right-now. Because we don't have that time machine, there will also be a whole mess of trouble with banks and so on, who also trusted future-you to pay up.

So, can you trust future-you to pay up, given the amount you're borrowing and your current and possible future circumstances? That's the question you need to ask when you borrow from your future self, and the answer depends on how well you know and trust yourself and very little else.

Re:Assumtions galore

[meerling]

You don't seem to understand a number of things involved here. I'll point out just a small selection of things you've overlooked or apparently don't understand. We aren't bringing them in, they are bringing themselves, so we don't get to pick and chose from another countries elite, we have to accept or deny from the pool that is making itself available.
Second, they are immigrants. This means that things have gotten bad enough for them where they live they are willing to give up their homes, which may be ancestral, their extended families, their friends, their entire lives, to go to someplace where they think things will give them a better chance at life.
The rich, the powerful, and those that are reasonably comfortable are almost never immigrants.
Immigrants tend to come from places of turmoil where life isn't all that sure. Maybe it's because of a corrupt government, or out of control crime, an ongoing war, suffering from famine, or any of a thousand other horrible situations. Those kinds of places don't have good credit scores for most of the people, if any.
Then there's the entire thing about opportunity. We have far more opportunities for people to prosper than exist in those places of turmoil. Try making a living as a doctor in a country where the hospitals keep getting blown up and if you even get a paycheck every couple of months for a weeks work you're lucky. Or a writer where nobody can afford to buy the books. Those people will also look horrible on a credit check, and yet they can certainly thrive in a place like the US. Then there are all those other people who can also do great here, but couldn't in their own country because of lack of opportunity or other issues. Among them is being too damn busy dodging the press gangs of both the government and the rebels or criminals trying to bolster their forces. You just have no idea WHY their credit looks like shit, other than the fact that they have just left their homes, and possibly a large chunk of their assets they couldn't bring with them (real estate among them) to go to another country. Did you know that doing such a thing is a BIG hit on your credit score?

Hell, if you want to base their eligibility on their credit score, you might as well go by penis length and breast size since you think they can always fall back to making porn.

Re:Assumtions galore

[Anonymous Coward]

Never borrowing is not really a good sign of financial responsibility. Aside from the fact that using credit cards that you pay off every month actually gives you money (through rewards programs*), borrowing money for expensive purchases you could not otherwise directly afford can allow increased financial opportunities you'd not otherwise have. Taking out a mortgage to buy a house in an area where prices are rising, then selling it later. Or taking out reasonable amounts of student loan debt to get a degree that allows you to find better paying jobs. Even taking out a loan for a car allows you to take jobs you'd otherwise not be able to get to at all.

*You could argue that if people didn't use credit cards, everything would be cheaper (since merchants wouldn't have to pay credit card fees) and so it's a net negative for consumers. While that may be true, given credit cards do exist and are widely used, not using them yourself to gain rewards is financially irresponsible, since costs are the same to you whether you pay cash or not.

That whole "gain rewards" argument is one of the dumbest excuses I've ever heard to justify using credit. The world has a lot of millionaires and billionaires. I dare you to find me one of them that got rich off fucking credit card reward programs.

The only way your bullshit idea makes sense is if you or the organization you work for are profiting from it. Stop trying to peddle debt as if it's a good thing.

Re:Assumtions galore

[gtall]

Ah, the old "my guy's bad but what about yours?" argument. Regardless of Hillary's sins, your guy remains a grifter.

Re:Assumtions galore

[sabt-pestnu]

The fact you don't borrow does not mean you have no credit score. It just means you don't have a record of borrowing and repayment. Presumably other elements, like actual car/house ownership, holding a job, etc, contribute portions to the credit score.

from here:

Your credit score is generated based on the information in your credit report. Fair Isaac, the makers of the FICO score, is tight-lipped about exactly how the scores are calculated. But they do give the weights of various criteria that they look at: 35% payment history, 30% amount owed, 15% length of history, 10% new credit, 10% types of credit used.

Percentage of available credit in use is a factor, so with 100% credit available... :)

Personally, I also avoid borrowing whenever possible. The one time I had a store credit card, I cancelled it after getting a $50 late fee on a $20 charge that was late by 1 day.

Re:Assumtions galore

[shanen]

You're feeding a moronic troll. By NO stretch of the imagination was Hillary ever the demon she was cracked up to be. But the decades of slander, vilification, and demonization finally worked well enough for Putin's puppet to seize the White House.

Only one real reason they hated her so much. Certainly not her policies. It was because she was in the wrong political party. (Ditto Bill, actually.)

At least in Obama's case they could add some good old-fashioned racism into the mix of motivations. That's sort of conservative, for the very worst senses of the term.

Re:Assumtions galore

[magarity]

So, like Japan? Not organized? Japan is the epitome of "organized".You're a fool.

What are you babbling about? Japanese consumers do not have a unified credit score like the US but they definitely do have credit reporting with the bank and similar financial institutions they use.

Re:Assumtions galore

[Freischutz]

And yet he's still less corrupt than Hillary. How about that Haiti reconstruction, eh? The Clinton Foundation raised billions for them. And spent millions. And pocketed the difference. Oops.

Say what you want about Hillary but she is not the kind of moron that managed to bankrupt six, that's **SIX**, casinos.

Re:Assumtions galore

[vlad30]

A drug dealer could have a great credit score so would a crooked business person who rips off their customers. So yes it it has little to do with morality I know a few small business people who struggled to pay off all sorts of debt but they did it despite the discomfort it brought to them financially as their morals could not let them sleep until they achieved that.

Re: Assumtions galore

[Carewolf]

Sophisticated design enough? Lol, most civilizated countries in West does not have credit scores. That is entirely an American and Israeli concept (and possibly Chinese, good company)

Re:Assumtions galore

[Gavagai80]

Never borrowing is not really a good sign of financial responsibility. Aside from the fact that using credit cards that you pay off every month actually gives you money (through rewards programs*), borrowing money for expensive purchases you could not otherwise directly afford can allow increased financial opportunities you'd not otherwise have. Taking out a mortgage to buy a house in an area where prices are rising, then selling it later. Or taking out reasonable amounts of student loan debt to get a degree that allows you to find better paying jobs. Even taking out a loan for a car allows you to take jobs you'd otherwise not be able to get to at all.

You don't need to take out a loan for a car if you're not living paycheck to paycheck. You can get a car for $1000 or less, and it'll get you to the job just as well as that shiny Tesla. My car's resale value is probably about 50 cents with all the impact damage, but it's quite reliable. Note I'm not saying there's anything wrong with taking out a loan for a car -- if you have a large income but low savings and want a luxury car, feel free, but don't pretend you need that to get to work.

Flipping houses is obviously an activity for the middle class and rich, and thus has nothing do with the responsible poor scenario I was detailing. In fact you're making my point: rich people borrow more, because they make money borrowing. So-called good debt is an option for them. Responsible poor people borrow less, because they don't get approved for mortgages and tend to be the ones whose lives are destroyed by escalating payday-style loans when something prevents them from paying it back. Why take that risk until you have to?

With credit cards, once again, the kind of credit card a rich person can get approved for offers considerably better deals than the kind a poor person is likely to be stuck with. I applied a couple times but was of course rejected due to no credit history and low income, so I shrugged and accepted the loss of a few dollars of rewards. If you're poor, you're not going to rack up air miles points anyway. And at any rate my visa debit card offers some rewards.

Re: Assumtions galore

[ShanghaiBill]

For a long time I had no score. Nothing. When soft credit reports were pulled on me, it returned no data at all, because I had no hard queries done for more than seven years.

"No data" is not the same as "no score". If they have a record of you existing, you have a score.

If you have ever had a bank account, you have a score. If you have paid for utilities in your own name, you have a score. If you have a non-prepaid cell phone, you have a score. If you have ever had a hard query, such as applying to rent an apartment, then you have a score.

Re:Assumtions galore

[grep -v '.*' *]

I simply think he doesn't worry, tomorrow's problems can be fixed tomorrow.

Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Ummm, you realize you've got your answer in your own tagline, right?

Re:Assumtions galore

[Zontar The Mindless]

"I can't believe my ears!" --Ross Perot.

Re:Assumtions galore

[Zontar The Mindless]

Here, we have immigration via family, and immigration sponsorship. My accountant sponsored his brother to come to Canada, and his brother? Turned out to be a deadbeat. On welfare for years, and what happened? My accountant sponsored, so now the province is taking every penny of welfare back from him.

It's the same in the US; if you sponsor someone for a family visa, you're financially responsible for them for 10 years or until they become naturalised (or leave the country), whichever comes first. I know this because as part of bringing my wife to the US earlier this year, I had to sign a contract with the US government to this effect.

Re:Assumtions galore

[liquid_schwartz]

Ah, the old "my guy's bad but what about yours?" argument. Regardless of Hillary's sins, your guy remains a grifter.

Both are corrupt. If you want to MAGA both should be locked up, as well as a great many other politicians. That it came down to these two candidates explains a lot about why America isn't nearly as great as it used to be.

Re:Assumtions galore

[Applehu Akbar]

I wonder how California would score, based on this criteria...

It’s a wealthy place. There are over three people in the state who can still afford a residential down payment.

Re:Assumtions galore

[Luckyo]

Many developed countries don't have credit score, but those tend to have credit records which show if you have or have not managed to pay your bills/debts on time.

Here in Finland for example, we have a concept called "maksuhäiriömerkintä". It literally means "mark of disruption in payment". You get this by failing to pay bills, then ignoring the reminders that you have outstanding bills for a lengthy period of time until it goes to the collecting agency.

This has an advantage of assuming that you're in good standing if you don't have such marks on your record, but makes banks' job of assessing risk of giving you loans for things like apartment mortgage harder, as they have to make an assessment based on less information. Essentially some of the risk of people who probably should have more expensive loans because they're not as responsible with their money is paid for by the rest of us. It's in line with having wider reaching social security net on cultural level.

I would find it completely acceptable if immigration agency to a country that is suffering from significant problems with economic migrants was to request that I provide citation from our bureaucracy that I do not have a maksuhäiriömerkintä on my record for immigration purposes and penalize me with meeting additional criteria such as payment of a bond that would be returned should I meet all financial obligations, should I have such marks on my record. It's one of the viable ways to see that I as an immigrant can in fact handle my finances, and will not become a financial burden, and notably one of the ways that private companies here in Finland have acted for a long time when a person immigrates or returns from a long stay abroad. There was a good story on the subject this friday on our national broadcaster's site (in Finnish) here:

https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10520...

Re:Assumtions galore

[russotto]

The fact you don't borrow does not mean you have no credit score. It just means you don't have a record of borrowing and repayment. Presumably other elements, like actual car/house ownership, holding a job, etc, contribute portions to the credit score.

The FICO credit score does not include employment, owning a car, or owning a house. If you have never borrowed, or haven't borrowed much, you will not have a score. If you have no open accounts in the past 6 months you have no score.

There may be other scores which take other things into consideration, but they aren't common.

Re: Assumtions galore

[russotto]

Yes it is possible to have no score at all. It just takes a bit of effort to not play the game.

Why bother, when it takes so little effort to win (760+)?

Re: Assumtions galore

[astrofurter]

You consented when you clicked "I agree".

Re: Assumtions galore

[astrofurter]

The totalitarian kind, obviously.

Re: Assumtions galore

[astrofurter]

Most major religions and all demotic political ideologies agree: usury is morally wicked, destructive to the social fabric, and ought be actively suppressed by the sovereign.

Re:Assumtions galore

[Lost Race]

There are many concerns - punishing asylum seekers for seeking asylum by permanently stealing their children and placing them in torture camps being the most obvious (and to you shitty apologists itching to claim that because ICE separated a handful of families, suspected of child trafficking, during the Obama regime, this means it's normal or Obama's fault that the Republican regime has used it instead to deter asylum seekers by doing it to literally thousands of refugees, I sincerely hope you all die in the most painful way possible, you are utterly shitty people and the world would be better without you) - I have about the US immigration system right now.

That is one hell of a sentence. Took me three tries to parse it. In summary:

There are many concerns I have about the US immigration system right now.

Re:Assumtions galore

[Hognoxious]

Leasing companies would make a lot more money if they factored in the depreciation when calculating the monthly payments.

It's a mystery why they don't.

Re: Assumtions galore

[Hognoxious]

Was this the one card he put his business expenses on, i.e. stuff not actually paid by him?

Re:Assumtions galore

[LostMyBeaver]

By the American credit system (I am an American but left about 20 years ago) I'd be a "Don't touch ... stay away" for any lender. This is because, I generally never pay bills. Unless the bills are setup on autopay, I wait for the collection agency to call me and ask me to pay. Then I say "how much" and they say "$10,000" and I say "Bill me 1/4 each month and I'll pay it" and then it's done.

What's funny is that I have amazing credit by Norwegian standards. I went to the store (not a shoddy one, a legitimate business) and was there just to stay warm a few weeks back. I had some financial problems this summer because my former employer screwed me without notice out of like $20,000 and I was scraping by for a little while. I realized they had a nice sale on Meile washer's and driers and my wife had been asking for one for ages. I told the guy "I won't buy anything for a few weeks because I'm waiting on my salary."... before you know it, I was waiting for them to be delivered later that day... a $3,000 purchase entirely on credit. I got amazing credit terms and it's mostly paid off now. I decided to pay half immediately and then pay down the rest over a few months.

Lenders love me. I generally never pay like they want me to... but they get to screw me on collection fees and they always end up making more money from me than they would have otherwise and it rarely costs them more than a phone call.

I've never once paid anything but interest payments on my mortgage in 20 years. I still owe pretty much the entire amount I borrowed. The bank loves me because I gladly pay the interest so I can have more money to play with.

I have an income large enough that even if I have to "scrape by" for a few months, that generally means that between me and my wife, we still have about $12,000 a month after taxes to work with. But in America, I would be black listed by the credit system as a "don't touch".

Of course, the reason I'm such a financial mess is because there's no real reason to act otherwise. It's not like they punish me for being a mess. So, I behave however they let me and hope they make out better for it than if I were a nice customer. I suppose that if I lived in the draconian American system, I'd probably hire someone to take care of everything and if I needed more cash to waste on more crap, I would just moonlight.

I much prefer the non-draconian systems. Norway is a great place to live. :)

Re:Assumtions galore

[brunes69]

Considering that you can't even bring a credit score from Canada into the US without involving a special cross-border process like American Express Global Transfer or a cross-border bank, you are correct.

My spidey sense is telling me DHS has no idea what they're talking about here. Non-US citizens do not have credit scores with US credit agencies, ever.

Re: Assumtions galore

[Hognoxious]

Twas ever thus.

I wonder what William Carnegie's credit score would have been.

Re:Assumtions galore

[chihowa]

Unless you have mechanical aptitude and the free time to work on it, buying a $1000 car is not a financially responsible decision. The cost of maintaining a car rises sharply later in life and a large number of $1000 cars in well into the paying-more-in-repairs-than-what-you-bought-it-for stage of their life.

I've been a mechanic and I've seen the thrifty, but not financially responsible, poor go through this over and over. Getting a newer car, or even a cheap new car, with a non-predatory loan will ultimately save money in the long run.

I have fantastic credit, but not because I've ever spent more money than I had on hand. Knowing that credit scores exist and are used for all sorts of things besides loans (or assuming that you'll never ever need a loan) and choosing to deliberately let your score be poor is the financially irresponsible course of action.

I bought my last two cars on a 0% loan instead of buying them outright with cash. I could continue to invest the cash I would have otherwise spent and the cost of paying the loan actually goes down with time (as inflation goes up). Paying cash would have been the irresponsible decision.

Re:Assumtions galore

[basecastula]

We essentially pay for a credit score. Fuck that.

Re:Assumtions galore

[russotto]

I was talking to a woman who had this problem; she was always taught to pay cash and never borrow if she didn't have the money so she had almost no score.

She was taught wrong, or half-wrong anyway. Even 20-30 years ago it was common knowledge that it was good to build credit. For the past decade or so FICO has published the general criteria.

35% payment history: Pretty self-explanatory; you want a history of on-time payments

30% amounts owed: Not absolute amounts owed, but percentage of available credit. So it's good to have more credit available than you use.

15% length of credit history: Mostly length of time accounts have been open. So don't close your old accounts without a good reason.

10% credit mix: Having multiple different kinds of credit (cards, installment loans, mortgages, etc) is better. This is pretty minor and hard to do anything about when starting out

10% new credit: Opening new accounts or even getting "hard inquiries" (requests by a lender to see your score for the purpose of deciding whether to extend credit) temporarily lowers your score. Again, you have to take the hit sometime.

So... get credit cards as soon as you can. Use them, but stay comfortably below the credit limit. Pay them off within the grace period (doesn't matter to FICO whether you pay in full or pay the minimum, but the idea is to build credit, not pay interest). Keep it up, get credit line increases, and you'll have a decent score in a fairly short while. Not much you can do to game it, except possibly take advantage of the occasional 0-interest installment loan that stores sometimes offer as promotions (this gives you a temporary hit because of new credit, but a bump because of credit mix)

Re: Assumtions galore

[toddestan]

With most utilities you are in debt. They provide you the electricity/water/gas/whatever, and after a certain period they bill you for what you used. Since you already used it, you are in debt and the bill is to settle the debt. If you don't pay, they'll send collections after you. That's why some things like prepaid cell phone plans are not reported because there's no debt. If you decide to stop paying they'll just cut the service and that's the end of it.

Re:Assumtions galore

[Talderas]

Get a credit card with a $500 limit. Use it. Set auto-pay from your bank account so you never miss a payment and never pay a cent in interest.

If that's all the limit you can get, that's fine, but you probably don't want to have much more than $150 on that card if your goal is to build your credit rating.

Re:Assumtions galore

[Talderas]

The summary even says that the reason for it is to use the credit score to judge whether a legal residence applicant is "likely to become a "public charge" -- that is, a person primarily dependent on government assistance for food, housing, or medical care." This is appropriate because Citizenship & Immigration Services reports up to DHS.

Re: Assumtions galore

[edris90]

Only works in an environment that is closed in does not affect others or stack to to form critical momentum that changes the the underlying system. so what you don't loan out money you can't afford to lose because there's no guarantee you'll get anything back. you don't borrow money because there's no guarantee that even if you do everything that should be necessary, something expected won't come along and make it impossible to pay back. And since money is just a middleman that represents land , physical resources and,time, essentially the economy as a pie chart. To borrow money is 2 proactively create the possibility of somebody else labor indirectly being ripped off to cover your losses. Your philosophies only work in a unlimited Cornucopia of resources and time. But since the decisions of one person stack for the decisions of another can affect third parties that never had a say in the matter then is not honest to knowingly affect people without full disclosure and personal permission from all those that it affects. Anything that affects anybody is their business

Re:Assumtions galore

[Cederic]

Have you ever owned a home? Mine is not worse than when I bought it. It's been decorated, it's had a new boiler, the bathroom is much nicer and everything's been maintained.

It's objectively at least as good as it was. Meanwhile its value has gone up significantly because even if I'd let it fester housing is now more expensive and people are willing to pay more for a home.

No fraud, just a shit housing market.

Re:Assumtions galore

[Whorhay]

You can likely get a used corolla for $1000 or so that'll last another decade with minimal maintenance. Hell, even if you had to buy another one every six months you'd still be ahead on buying a new car. I can understand buying a lightly used vehicle if the payments won't burden you. But if you're stuck in poverty you're far better off to buy a junker with no AC or radio and use the savings to escape the poverty trap. If you're in poverty and you sign a contract for a car you are screwed out of that nice reliable car if you lose your job during the term of the loan.

Mod headline flaimbate

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Mod headline flaimbate

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, I was looking for the "moral character" part of the story and could not find it. It seems that DHS wants to analyze people's credit scores because that is correlated highly with other likely behaviors and outcomes. This is exactly like what many employers and insurers do, as they know people with good credit scores tend to be responsible and generally better prospects. Shouldn't we do everything we can to ensure we aren't importing people who will burden the existing citizens? This is a completely reasonable and good proposal, thanks for informing us of good ideas coming from the government.

China vs US

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:China vs US

[drinkypoo]

Someone please tell me how this is different from China's social credit policies.

This number is generated by corporations who don't give a shit about you and would happily kill you and sell your organs instead of by a government that doesn't give a shit about you and does happily kill people and sell their organs already. Toe-MAY-toe, toe-MAH-toe.

Re:China vs US

[PeeAitchPee]

Nonsense. Credit scores are used to assign a risk to a borrower. The higher a person's credit score, the more likely it is that they will pay back what they borrow. Unlike China's "social credit," credit scoring is is rooted in real actuarial science. We've already seen what happens when credit scores and the like are ignored and money is just lent out to anyone regardless of their ability to ever pay it back (the mid-2000s housing crisis, and today's student loan crisis) just because "it's the right thing to do." It is a bad thing financially for the country (any country, not just the US) to import a bunch of dependents who are statistically highly unlikely to be able to provide any value to society beyond "diversity." Unlike previous generations of immigrants, there are very few opportunities for unskilled laborers in the United States. If you are hellbent on bringing them here, you better have a real plan for paying for them.

Re:China vs US

[PseudoThink]

China's are first, and to a more populous demographic...so naturally we've got some catching up to do. #sarcasm

Re:China vs US

[ahodgson]

Unless they want to run for Congress. It seems to be a requirement to be terrible with money to be in the US government nowadays.

Re:China vs US

[Kenja]

Let us know when the Government inserts a warning message when you try and call someone with a low credit score like China does.

Re:China vs US

[PeeAitchPee]

Credit scores are nothing more than applied actuarial science. Like most science, it "doesn't give a shit about you." You may hate the way companies use it, but it's a number backed by real science which simply indicates the likelihood of a borrower to pay back what they borrow. That's it. Perhaps the more important question for society is why are these big corps and even parts of the gov't still allowed to trap people in debt by lending out money they know can't be paid back?

Re:China vs US

[owlaf]

Interesting the score doesn't reflect when someone is frugal enough most of the time they don't need credit cards or loans. My dad took out a loan on a motorcycle for the reason to get his first credit card. He had borrowed so little and been a number of years, he couldn't get a card.

Re: China vs US

[Type44Q]

Drink that poo, Ratso.

Re:China vs US

[PeeAitchPee]

Yep, that's exactly how it works. The banks need "proof" that someone will pay back a loan, and the only real proof is a past borrowing history.

Re:China vs US

[Hognoxious]

One person lives off the dole, works on the sly and has enough to get by. He never borrows anything because he doesn't need to.

Another goes into debt for good reasons - say getting training or starting a business - but through no fault of his own it doesn't pan out.

Which will have the better credit score? Which is less of a burden on the public finances?

(protip: it's not the same answer each time).

Re:China vs US

[gDLL]

Nobody forces you to immigrate to the US, whereas in China you can't opt out. See the difference ?

Re: China vs US

[Anonymous Coward]

We've already seen what happens when credit scores and the like are ignored and money is just lent out to anyone regardless of their ability to ever pay it back... just because "it's the right thing to do."

Nope. Banks lent money to people they shouldn't have in order to resell those loans to other banks as AAA first class debts. It was a scam run by thieves that we are all still paying for. Well, everyone except the bankers are still paying for it.

Re:China vs US

[Kohath]

China isn't giving the gift of permanent resident status in return for maintaining good social credit.

People have a human right to live and pursue happiness in their homeland. Entry and permanent residence in someone else’s homeland is a gift, not a right.

Re:China vs US

[guruevi]

If you were a legal migrant you would know that the DHS (INS) already looks at your self sufficiency before allowing you entrance. That is a process that can take up to a year to complete, making it easier by taking a statistical predictor of success and self-sufficiency makes the process easier.

As a legal migrant, your life is fully vetted before entry, integration into American culture, diseases (you need to submit full birth and medical records and have an American doctor vet you personally), criminal activity predictors and self sufficiency (income, savings and a social network) predictors are some of the biggest things they look at. Hence why illegal immigration is such a big issue (feelings of unfairness) across legal migrant populations (including Hispanics).

Re: China vs US

[Anonymous Coward]

We've already seen what happens when credit scores and the like are ignored and money is just lent out to anyone regardless of their ability to ever pay it back (the mid-2000s housing crisis, and today's student loan crisis) just because "it's the right thing to do."

Actually, what we saw back then was the same thing as with Enron and MCI Worldcom, or the 1980s Savings and Loan crisis and the Japanese Asset inflation, the 1920s bank crisis that lead to the Great Depression, and even the various Panics of the 1800s. Really, there is a documented history that goes back much further than your limited memory.

Financial shenanigans and malfeasance at the highest levels, which was far from doing the "right thing" you are castigating, but instead the rampant greed that leads to deceit and abuse by the immoral frauds who smokescreen the blame away from themselves. There's a reason that those mortgage companies have been prosecuted for their multiple offenses, even if they have escaped the attentions of proper justice. They are the guilty parties, and they didn't do it out of any noble sentiment.

In fact, even now, it is those student loan companies (and the colleges) who are defrauding the students and the public in general as even the US Department of Education under Betsy Devos can't deny despite attempts at shutting down the watchdog agency making the report.

Really, you must watch too much bad fiction if you think con artists are up to anything but their own enrichment.

Re:China vs US

[PopeRatzo]

The government is not proposing to use this at all for citizens (or, I believe, permanent residents).

You're way off the mark. The Chinese "social credit" system is nothing more than the American credit score model. And whether one is the government and one is private business doesn't matter one bit, because you have no say in the matter either way.

Are you a willing customer of Experian? Did you agree to any of it?

Re:China vs US

[tsqr]

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.

OK. Let''s see now...

The US system is based upon the financial state and behavior of the individual, and is used to evaluate the likelihood that an individual will repay a debt. High debt/income ratio? Bad. Bankruptcies? Bad. Late credit card payments? Bad. Does this system discriminate against the poor, or those who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own? You bet it does - it doesn' care why you're a poor credit risk; only that you are

The Chinese system is more social than financial, and is being used by the government to shape individual behavior. Smoke in public? Bad. Jaywalk? Bad. Dog bark too much? Bad.

See the difference?

Re:China vs US

[PopeRatzo]

Nobody forces you to immigrate to the US, whereas in China you can't opt out. See the difference ?

I'm talking about our credit score system more generally.

Do you believe your credit score is voluntary? Can you choose whether or not to be listed with Experian? Can you do so practically?

Re:China vs US

[fustakrakich]

If the government doesn't give a shit, it's because the voters don't.

Re:China vs US

[PopeRatzo]

People have a human right to live and pursue happiness in their homeland.

Where is that "human right" limited to, "in their homeland"?

Re:China vs US

[Kohath]

People have a human right to live and pursue happiness in their homeland.

Where is that "human right" limited to, "in their homeland"?

In reality.

Re:China vs US

[amorsen]

Being punished for not paying back a loan is a lot different from being punished for writing "N" to your friend.

THAT is why China's social credit is a lot worse than credit scores in the US.

Another thing is that China being totally appalling leaves plenty of room for everywhere else to be bad, while still being less appalling than China.

Re: China vs US

[jenningsthecat]

We've already seen what happens when credit scores and the like are ignored and money is just lent out to anyone regardless of their ability to ever pay it back... just because "it's the right thing to do."

Nope. Banks lent money to people they shouldn't have in order to resell those loans to other banks as AAA first class debts. It was a scam run by thieves that we are all still paying for. Well, everyone except the bankers are still paying for it.

IIRC, banks didn't merely lend money to such people, they actively encouraged them to borrow. Weren't there even incentives for bank personnel to lend as much as possible?

Re:China vs US

[fustakrakich]

because you have no say in the matter either way.

Bullshit. We voted for our government. It is a perfect reflection.

Re:China vs US

[amorsen]

The Chinese social credit system punishes you for posting a picture of Winnie the Pooh. The American credit score punishes you for not consuming financial services in the way that benefits the banks the most.

Both are bad, but I am much more worried about my freedom to post Winnie the Pooh than I am about my freedom to use a debit card instead of a credit card.

Re:China vs US

[fustakrakich]

the only real proof is a past borrowing history.

Nah, you can always fudge the books and hardly get slapped on the wrist. Still happening today.

Re:China vs US

[PopeRatzo]

Both are bad, but I am much more worried about my freedom to post Winnie the Pooh than I am about my freedom to use a debit card instead of a credit card.

You don't see how those two things are exactly alike? A credit score in the US can keep you from traveling (can't pay with cash), can keep you from housing, can keep you from working.

But your big worry is Winnie the Pooh?

Re:China vs US

[PopeRatzo]

The Chinese system is more social than financial, and is being used by the government to shape individual behavior. Smoke in public? Bad. Jaywalk? Bad. Dog bark too much? Bad.

They are both used to shape individual behavior and they are both involuntary.

Also, you skipped "only using cash and not using credit? Bad"

Re:China vs US

[PopeRatzo]

Being punished for not paying back a loan is a lot different from being punished for writing "N" to your friend.

You are also punished for not getting a loan in the first place. It's a game you must play or not be free to travel, get jobs, etc.

Re:China vs US

[PopeRatzo]

Bullshit. We voted for our government. It is a perfect reflection.

Did you vote for Experian? For Trans-Union?

Re:China vs US

[fustakrakich]

The majority votes to protect their power. Everything is consensual.

Re:China vs US

[Entrope]

That's utter bullshit. The US credit rating system is not defined, managed, or widely used by the US government. Having a low credit score does not mean your travel is restricted, which is how the Chinese system made news recently. It isn't based on your political behavior or social speech. It doesn't keep your children out of top schools, it isn't planned to be shown on social media services, and won't determine your eligibility for jobs or Internet speeds or any of the other things Wikipedia lists. You're positing an absurdly false equivalence.

Re: China vs US

[Waffle Iron]

"*I* didn't run over that little kid in the crosswalk.

The car I was driving did!"

Re:China vs US

[MrMr]

Correct, that is actually still the norm where I live. Even worse, if you pay your credit cards balance in full every month you are not even registered as 'borrowing', so you do not build up a documented credit history.

Re:China vs US

[Anonymous Coward]

> As a legal migrant, your life is fully vetted before entry,
I can confirm this. My foreign born wife had to be vetted, in the ways you mentioned. before they would even consider her for a fiancée visa.

> self sufficiency (income, savings and a social network)
Since she could not demonstrate self sufficiency, I had to sign an agreement that I would guarantee to the federal government it would never have to support her as long as she was a resident alien with less than 40 quarters of qualifying work - as part of her visa application. I would be on the financial hook. This agreement survives divorce. Things may have become stricter since 1998.

Re:China vs US

[Entrope]

Having a low credit score -- or even no credit history -- will not prevent you from buying plane or train or bus tickets in the US. It will only prevent you from getting a credit card to buy a ticket on credit.

Having a low social credit score -- and having none is not an option -- can prevent you from buying those tickets in China.

If you're going to spout such garbage, you should at least make it obscure enough that it isn't immediately obvious as garbage.

Re: China vs US

[c6gunner]

Thanks man. Slashdot wouldn't be Slashdot without a shitty car analogy.

Re: China vs US

[Waffle Iron]

Nor would it be the same without dorks attempting to make points with irrelevant technicalities.

Re:China vs US

[andymadigan]

Funny, I have great credit but I still opted for T-Mobile instead of a contract. Mostly because Verizon tried to tell me with a straight face that they could raise my bill by unlimited amounts and I had no right to cancel with paying the ETF. So, they lost my business permanently over $75.

Most of the rest of the world never had phone service contracts anyway, why would you want one? I haven't the faintest clue why you would want landline phone service either. I'm 30 years old and I've never had it.

As for the policy itself, there's only two questions:
1) Does the government have a legitimate interest in trying to reduce the number of immigrants who receive government benefits?
2) Can a credit report be used as a valid predictor of whether an immigrant will claim benefits?

I'm pretty sure the answer to #1 is yes, though whether we actually do it probably depends on who is in the White House. As for #2, the credit history of someone here on a visa would probably be pretty short. I suppose if they've started taking out "pay day" loans or vehicle title loans that's probably a bad sign. There's probably enough data by now to see if there's a strong correlation.

The summary is pretty clearly pushing a viewpoint based on false logic. Immigration in the U.S. isn't just a character judgement and I don't see any evidence that DHS is looking to use credit data to judge character.

P.S. Before anyone decides to call me a neocon windbag, I don't like my U.S. Congresswoman (Nancy Pelosi) because I think she's too conservative. As far as I'm concerned we should have border checks between California and the rest of the country so that CA can set its own immigration policies separate from the rest of the U.S. And if you could keep that orange thing that's somehow in charge of the Federal Government out of our state we'd appreciate it.

Re:China vs US

[tsqr]

The Chinese system is more social than financial, and is being used by the government to shape individual behavior. Smoke in public? Bad. Jaywalk? Bad. Dog bark too much? Bad.

They are both used to shape individual behavior and they are both involuntary.

Also, you skipped "only using cash and not using credit? Bad"

Re:China vs US

[tsqr]

The Chinese system is more social than financial, and is being used by the government to shape individual behavior. Smoke in public? Bad. Jaywalk? Bad. Dog bark too much? Bad.

They are both used to shape individual behavior and they are both involuntary.

Also, you skipped "only using cash and not using credit? Bad"

Wow. Not using credit is bad for your credit score? Who could have possibly predicted that?

Re:China vs US

[PopeRatzo]

Wow. Not using credit is bad for your credit score? Who could have possibly predicted that?

Why should not needing credit indicate a lack of credit-worthiness?

I don't think you've thought this through.

Re:China vs US

[Zontar The Mindless]

The agreement is more or less the same. I signed one earlier this year.

Re:China vs US

[PrimaryConsult]

Smaller banks and/or credit unions might ignore the lack of a credit score and issue you a low limit credit card simply if you have a history of direct depositing a large amount, or have a large savings account. A friend was able to get a credit card from her bank with a sub-500 score when her direct deposit amount every 2 weeks suddenly increased to the level where there was a 2 in front of the comma.

Re:China vs US

[tsqr]

Wow. Not using credit is bad for your credit score? Who could have possibly predicted that?

Why should not needing credit indicate a lack of credit-worthiness?

I don't think you've thought this through.

I get it. You' one of those people who believe that not being tested demonstrates your ability to pass a test.

You seem to need to have a lot of simple concepts explained to you. Not USING credit is not equivalent to not NEEDING credit. If you never use CREDIT, you have no CREDIT history. If you have no CREDIT history, you have nothing upon which to base a CREDIT score. In other words, if you've never repaid a debt, you haven't proven that you posess the ability and self-discipline to do so. There are plenty of credit card companies out there that will jump at the chance to give you the opportunity to start your credit history. Of course, if you lack the ability and self-discipline to manage credit card use, you'll end up with a crappy credit score anyway.

You appear to feel that the world should work according to a different set of rules, to be more fair. I suspect you have what you think is more than your fair share of disappointment in your life.

Re:China vs US

[UnknowingFool]

Only if their credit history reflects their entire finances which it does not if an individual does not rely on credit. Some people simply don't borrow because they don't need to borrow. You see this with older generations where checks are used instead of credit cards because the individual grew up with the notion that managing their finances meant never borrowing.

Re:China vs US

[Kohath]

Yeah, right up until countries start to kick deadbeats, like you, out.

You may want to rethink telling genocide jokes like that.

Re:China vs US

[amorsen]

That is exactly right, by big worry is Winnie the Pooh. If you cannot see the difference between being stopped from travelling because you can't be bothered to get one of those dubious credit cards and being stopped from travelling because you tweeted that the president is somewhat mentally unstable, I feel for you.

Re:China vs US

[amorsen]

Yes, it sucks. I moved to one of those sanity-deficient countries, I had to get a credit card at a generous 49.9% annual rate. Obviously with no way to automatically pay it down each month, because the company only makes money when its customers mess up.

It is REALLY annoying. But it is nowhere as annoying as being unable to say that the president is a nincompoop.

Re:China vs US

[yet another SanTiago]

Is it not possible just to pay a ticket with a debit card? (Which, i assume, does not require credit score.)

Re:China vs US

[yet another SanTiago]

In article 13 of UDHR

Re:China vs US

[PopeRatzo]

Yes, it sucks. I moved to one of those sanity-deficient countries, I had to get a credit card at a generous 49.9% annual rate. Obviously with no way to automatically pay it down each month, because the company only makes money when its customers mess up.

Did you know that in 22 states in the US, you can lose your drivers license if you have unpaid student loans? Which could make it hard or impossible to work for a lot of people, which seems a bit counter-productive, but you've got to feed the machine.

Having bad credit (or no credit) in the United States can cause just as much hardship as having bad "social credit" in China. Don't be so quick to pat the US on the back for not being a tyranny.

Re:China vs US

[PopeRatzo]

Is it not possible just to pay a ticket with a debit card? (Which, i assume, does not require credit score.)

In many institutions, you can't get a bank account without a credit score. And no bank account means no debit card.

Re:China vs US

[amorsen]

You don't understand my point. I am not arguing that the CONSEQUENCES in the US are better than in China.

I am arguing that the REASONS for low credit are entirely different, and that is the entire difference between merely misguided capitalism and malicious tyranny.

Re:China vs US

[sysrammer]

Well said.

On a slightly different point, it appears that in ancient Greece failed aristocracies led to tyranny (in the canonical definition of the term). What do failed oligarchies lead to I wonder?

Character means something

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Mod headline profiling.

[Ostracus]

A form of profiling.

No they don't

[Kohath]

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.

Re:No they don't

[PeeAitchPee]

Your credit score (vaguely) indicates whether you earn a paycheck, are self sufficient and pay your bills.

Not exactly. Your credit score indicates how likely you are to pay back what you borrow -- that's it. It's perfectly possible (and sadly common) for people that make a lot of money to be terrible borrowers and default on loans, or declare bankruptcy, etc. Conversely, it's also possible to make a rather modest paycheck but have a high credit score -- those are usually the people who never forget to pay a monthly bill, don't run a credit card balance, etc. Finally, you have to actually borrow money every once in awhile and pay it back to really build your credit score. That's how you "prove" that you'll actually pay back what you want to borrow, and why banks look very carefully at your credit card payment histories, etc. They literally have this stuff (managing financial risk) down to a science.

Re:No they don't

[jenningsthecat]

well, they have it down to some number that they think makes it a science. If it was really a science, the banks wouldn't have a bailout due to poor risk management

The problem wasn't with the science, it was with the banks, which blatantly ignored the science and lent money to lots of people who were demonstrably poor credit risks. It's even likely that a lot of those people didn't know they were poor credit risks - they weren't financially clued in, and assumed that if the banks lent them money then said banks thought the borrowers would be able to pay it back. Many of the borrowers who brought on the crisis weren't your typical deadbeats - they got in over their heads by listening to poor advice from banksters who were only to happy to take short term gain at the expense of imposing long term pain on the entire country.

Re:No they don't

[PeeAitchPee]

You are leaving out the activists and politicians who lobbied for greater credit access for the poor and for college students -- regardless of their ability to re-pay -- and they are equally to blame. "Every working family should be able to buy a home. Every kid should be able to go to college." Those soundbites sounds great, but without discipline and financial constraints, they are a recipe for disaster. You are also completely absolving the borrowers of any personal responsibility at all. No one put a gun to their heads to take that money -- they weren't not "financially clued in," they were either too lazy or too stupid to take their time and figure out whether or not what they were offered was in fact a good deal for them, and most importantly, WHETHER THEY COULD PAY IT BACK. My wife and I were offered mortgages for way more than we wanted to borrow in the run-up to the housing crisis, but we actually did our due diligence and decided on our own that we would (at best) end up severely cramped financially with one of those bigger notes. Sure the banks acted greedily and were predatory -- the way all banks have during the entirety of human civilization -- but so did the politicians and lobbyists (do you really think they had no idea what would happen when the banks are allowed to write half-million dollar mortgages to grocery clerks, or $200k loans to art students?), and so did the borrowers who got in over their heads. I think we are on the same page though that this type of lending to high-risk borrowers shouldn't be allowed, but I have no faith that Congress will ban it. Obama with House and Senate majorities let things stand as-is in the aftermath of the housing meltdown, as did Trump with his own Congressional majorities.

Re:No they don't

[Kohath]

It's still an indication, even if it is incorrect in a small minority of cases.

Re:No they don't

[UnknowingFool]

Your credit score indicates how likely you are to pay back what you borrow based on your history

FTFY. Certain groups of people simply don't borrow. For example many immigrants (legal and illegal) pay cash. Older generations grew up with the notion that you didn't borrow unless you had to borrow, etc.

Moral character?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Moral character?

[UnknowingFool]

The problem with a credit score is that it relies on a history of borrowing. When related to immigrants, many of them have lower credit scores simply because they don't have a verified history of borrowing. Many immigrants use cash and when they borrow it is with friends and family and not institutions. Using a credit score to judge whether immigrants will go on welfare is flawed in this regard.

Open Sesame

[the_mushroom_king]

The US is moving toward authoritarianism, akin to China: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/1...

Re:Open Sesame

[DigressivePoser]

I prefer ddg'ing to googling. Pick your poison. So the majority of the links on the 1st page show prison time and the rest indicate like you said - so I stand corrected as those links are more recent. But I don't believe for a second the law's sponsor ever intended on for the penalties to be reduced. Only through nation-wide ridicule, did the reduction come about.

The fact is that CA is becoming an authoritarian state with, like you said, silly laws like this.

Sponsorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

>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.

Crap summary is crap

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

What about polite, hard-core, criminals?

[walterbyrd]

I suspect the most hard-core criminals are outwardly polite.

Yep, total flamebait

[raymorris]

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.

Re: Yep, total flamebait

[Bruce66423]

You mean those organisations that have fully repaid the emergency loans, making the government a significant profit?

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/0...

and especially remember that Lehman Brothers has paid all its debts

https://uk.reuters.com/article...

The decision to fail to support Lehman Brothers was driven by ignorant politicians and caused major problems for no good reason.

Re: Yep, total flamebait

[jenningsthecat]

They argue that people who are financially a mess are more likely to become a drain on the tax payer.

And yet Wall Street bankers are still allowed to roam free.

This, precisely.

Re:I agree with this.

[Hognoxious]

Any decent country bans poor immigration

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?

Re:What if one has no debts?

[guruevi]

Credit scores exist without having a credit card. Open a bank account and you have a credit history which is practically global (banks operate these metrics across continents) except for some third world countries.

If you have no bank account it will be pretty hard to get legal immigration into the US; it's a rather expensive process and US Embassies don't necessarily accept those amounts in cash.

Re:I agree with this.

[skoskav]

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.

I suspect ...

[PPH]

... that this new rule:

would like to make immigrants submit their credit scores

... is nothing more than some procedures to comply with GDPR. Users of personal data will have to demonstrate some sort of affirmative permission before accessing it. In the past, there was probably some language buried in immigration applications allowing such record access. But now DHS will probably need an explicit check mark from the applicant stating 'I Agree'.

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!

Re:What if one has no debts?

[Kjella]

Credit scores exist without having a credit card. Open a bank account and you have a credit history which is practically global (banks operate these metrics across continents) except for some third world countries.

Pretty sure that's not true, at least a friend of mine who emigrated to America from Norway said he had no credit score there despite having both bank accounts and loans here. But what he did was get all the credit cards he could find, live on credit for a month then paid it off. Apparently that was enough to establish a decent credit score, he had an income that more than justified the mortgage so it wasn't that. They just hit a divide by zero when he had no credit history at all.

Wrong Source for Fair, Wrong Topic for Slashdot

[Fringe]

This seems out-of-place for two reasons.

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 /.

Re:Wrong Source for Fair, Wrong Topic for Slashdot

[dcw3]

Yup, it's a BS article. INS (and DHS) have for many years looked into the financial background of immigrants. When I helped my ex-wife immigrate back in '88, I had to provide evidence that I could support her. It has zip to do with moral character, and everything to do with Slate stirring the pot to get more eyeballs and revenue.

Shylock calls Antionio a "good man"

[AlanObject]

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.

Sure I'll help you out there

[SuperKendall]

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.

Go away

[AndyKron]

When is the Patriot Act going to die? It needs to.

That's why the look at overall finances, not thing

[raymorris]

> 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?

Crap like this

[OYAHHH]

Is exactly why one should first and foremost be a libertarian.

if ( Big Government == Big Problems ) then
    {
    becomeALibertarian ( you );
    }
else
    {
    beTheIdiot ( you );
    }

Re:Leftist psychosis on display

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:I agree with this.

[MrMr]

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...

In other news

[nehumanuscrede]

Identity theft of those with stellar credit scores are on the rise. :|

News at eleven.

Re:I agree with this.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Even if you don't borrow

[aepervius]

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.

Re: Even if you don't borrow

[Carewolf]

Schufa is not a credit score. It is unpaid debt tracking. The difference is that having absolutely no data in Schufa is the best possible score. In a credit scoring system you first have to prove yourself an irresponsible consumer taking loans all the time to get a credit score. That is why it is so retarded. It is just measuring how good (read wasteful) a costumer your are to banks, not how responsible you are.

How to select good immigrants

[AHuxley]

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.

Reminds me of Chris Rock

[Actually, I do RTFA]

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

Not exactly

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:I agree with this.

[skoskav]

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.

Propagadize much?

[russotto]

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.

Setting aside the proposal's moral abdication when it comes to the needy

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.

Re: Completely wrong.

[astrofurter]

Good dog - you get a bone!

Re: Blackmail risk

[astrofurter]

Financial totalitarianism is still totalitarianism.

You also get a score in schufa

[aepervius]

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.

Re:I agree with this.

[Hognoxious]

The fact you think a statue is law is hilarious.

Not as hilarious as your reading comprehension skills. Where did I even mention law?

Re:What if one has no debts?

[guruevi]

I'm from the EU,I came to the US, my credit score from France, Belgian, Netherlands and Scottish banks followed me (Equifax reported the length they were open, balances in them etc) even though I never opened a credit card. Matter of fact, someone later stole my identity and opened a $1200 credit line with Carrefour and also with RBS and debt collectors tracked me down and sent a notice through a US subsidiary.

It's not widely accessible but all those banks (Argenta, ABN-AMRO, EBS) operate a global credit reporting system.

Kirstjen Nielsen

[LostMyBeaver]

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.

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 ... 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.

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

Seems reasonable to me

[biggaijin]

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.

Open immigration cannot exist...

[SonicSpike]

Open immigration cannot exist in a welfare state.

Catch-22

[Dusty101]

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?

Using credit scores to measure what they measure?

[sabbede]

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.

No Debt = Bad Credit

[hoggoth]

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!

Re:No Debt = Bad Credit

[russotto]

If you're in the US, you're not telling the truth. Whether you pay off your credit cards in full each month or not isn't even available in a credit report. It results in a lower balance reported (not necessarily zero), but lower balances are strictly a good thing by FICOs methodology.

Re: Completely wrong.

[edris90]

I don't believe in gambling with our nation's critical resources, which is what you have described. because of money represents end potential to solve problems that get in the way of people's perceptions of satisfaction and safety. Money is just a method but not the end goal. Sacrificing the end goal of providing for people , to the means of distribution, negates the justification for the means of