×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

New Federal Database Will Track Americans' Credit Ratings, Other Financial Info

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the but-they-know-your-social-security-number dept.

United States 294

schwit1 (797399) writes "As many as 227 million Americans may be compelled to disclose intimate details of their families and financial lives — including their Social Security numbers — in a new national database being assembled by two federal agencies. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau posted an April 16 Federal Register notice of an expansion of their joint National Mortgage Database Program to include personally identifiable information that reveals actual users, a reversal of previously stated policy. The FHFA will manage the database and share it with CFPB. A CFPB internal planning document for 2013-17 describes the bureau as monitoring 95 percent of all mortgage transactions. FHFA officials claim the database is essential to conducting a monthly mortgage survey required by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 and to help it prepare an annual report for Congress."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

the Putin stage (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137003)

The point where your oligarchs completely stop pretending you have any democratic say in your country.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137037)

It's a federal financial database, not state-run news agencies. Oh no! The government knows information that I already give other government agencies!

Re:the Putin stage (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 6 months ago | (#47137081)

The difference is probably that all the "interesting" data is now neatly collected in one place, ready to be used.

Some countries actually have laws in place to keep their governments specifically from doing just that.

Re:the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137127)

But we certainly must not legislate such evil communist european examples.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47140629)

It really is amazing to me just how vehemently Americans defend their government, no matter what facts are revealed, no matter how obvious abuses are and no matter how transparent the fabricated pretexts become. The level of delusion is breathtaking.

Re:the Putin stage (3, Insightful)

x0ra (1249540) | about 6 months ago | (#47137245)

To some extend, I doubt the US constitution authorize the Government to do that, but it would not be the first time it exceed its prerogative, and certainly not the last one either.

Re:the Putin stage (0)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#47137439)

The US constitution authorizes congress to do anything it wants. It just needs to have conress approval.

Re:the Putin stage (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137689)

No, in fact the Constitution is a regulative document not a normative document.
Regulative means that the Federal Government is only granted those powers explicitly stated in the Constitution, Normative means it would have those powers plus any others it might need. So my proof that the Constitution is normative comes from the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

For more info try http://www.di.unito.it/~guido/articoli/CONFERENZE/.svn/text-base/43-kr04.pdf.svn-base

Re: the Putin stage (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47139563)

Bullshit. The above poster was right they can do whatever they want. They controll the laws, the money, the media, and anything else they want 2 contoll to protect society from terrorists and pedohiles. You always have the freedom to decide if you want to comply with the rulers or if you want to die. If you should voluntarily give up you freedom and agree to comply with a benighn master who has you best interest at heart well that is just smart and in should no way convey that the populous is not free. Some people say go out and vote; well my name isn't, Cococola, Pepsi, the AMA, the ATA, and I don't have several million dollars in my account, so I have no vote.

Re:the Putin stage (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 6 months ago | (#47140249)

Regulative means that the Federal Government is only granted those powers explicitly stated in the Constitution

So the FAA is unconstitutional, since there's no explicit mention of flying?

Better close it down. We can set the employees to work dismantling all those illegal roads (the ones beginning with I).

Re:the Putin stage (5, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 6 months ago | (#47137775)

No, actually it doesn't.

There's a whole section of the Constitution concerning Congressional Powers (and another for Executive Powers).

And then there's the "if we didn't mention it, it's a prerogative of the States of the People" part (10th Amendment.)

Re:the Putin stage (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138039)

But the left hates and fears the Tenth Amendment or anything that takes power away from their daddy, the federal government.

Re:the Putin stage (-1, Flamebait)

x0ra (1249540) | about 6 months ago | (#47138187)

The left hates the whole Bill of Rights...

Re:the Putin stage (1)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 6 months ago | (#47138259)

yeah we should get rid of those tea party ACLU types.

Don't forget the 9th Amendment (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138255)

It's so very sad that most Americans have never READ the Constitution. They're all so very certain the things they WANT are "constitutional" and the things they don't want others doing are "unconstitutional" but most are clueless because they've never even bothered to READ it. This nation would not be in so many of the messes it's in right now if we had simply folowed the document. It's not like reading it would take any real effort; it's written in English, and unlike "War and Peace" or "Atlas Shrugged" the founders wrote it on FOUR (big) pages.

For those too lazy to look it up... the ninth ought to make LIMITED federal government very clear even before you get to the 10th:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The entire POINT of the Constitution was to create a small VERY LIMITED federal government with specific limited powers and responsibilities and leave the rest to the states and the people. It says this over and over again and re-states it in the 9th and 10th Amendments within the Bill of Rights. This is contrary to the desires of most politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, investment bankers etc so they've packed the government, including the courts, with people who don't give a damn about their oaths or the Constitution and who will legislate and rule in whatever way benefits them.

Re:Don't forget the 9th Amendment (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 6 months ago | (#47138371)

unfortunately, the federal government won the civil war, and it was all downhill after that.

Go away slavery freak (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138891)

The Civil War was about NOTHING BUT SLAVERY. Southern Democrats fired the first shots in the war THEY started because Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected and had a well-known position opposing the extension of slavery into any more states. NOBODY was arguing about ticket prices of ferry boats or the number of days in a school year or the price of a gallon of milk; the ONLY "states' right" southern Democrats were fighting about was SLAVERY.

The fact that Lincoln ended slavery (something our founders intended to eventually happen) imposed NO need on the federal government to ignore (but not repeal) the 9th and 10th amendments over the past 150 years. The nation's founders counted "non-free persons" (NOT "black people" - it was about station in society not skin color) as 3/5ths of a person was to prevent southern states (where it WAS all about skin color) from counting all their slaves as people (for purposes of allocating seats in congress) and then claiming they were not people at all (for purposes of selecting who would SIT in those seats). The founders intended the 3/5ths clause to limit the further spread of slavery and they predicted the institution would eventually be eliminated.

Forcing southern Democrats to accept that black people are human beings does not in any way mean that everybody (incluing those very same black people) must lose their 9th or 10th amendment protections against an ever-growing government interfering more and more in their states and in their personal lives. If that were the case, then forcing people to recognize that Irish or German people were human would create the same constitutional crisis. Oh, and on the SLIM chance you're NOT a racist and are just a deluded teenager pounding a keyboard in mommies basement who thinks the "stars and bars" is just a cool flag that stands for "rebellion against authority" - DROP IT. The Confederate flag is a flag of rebellion against the United States for the purpose of keeping black people as slaves.... there's NOTHING even remotely libertarian OR Republican in the idea of declaring some people to be "not human" so you can buy them and sell them and use them like cattle.

Re: Go away slavery freak (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47139745)

Gotta love the liberal revisionist history. If the civil war was only about slavery:

1) Why were there Union states that still allowed slavery?
2) Why did it take Lincoln two years AFTER the war started to deliver the emancipation proclamation?
3) Why were there Union states that still did not abolish slavery AFTER the emancipation proclamation and even AFTER the Civil War?

The Civil War started primarily because the South felt that their government no longer represented their interests. It was an entirely fair assertion since Lincoln won without carrying a single Southern state. Those are the facts.

Re: Go away slavery freak (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 6 months ago | (#47139971)

It was about slavery because the Southern states have admitted as much. They authored and published those documents, "declarations of secession", which outlined the reasons why they wanted to secede. Every single one of them features slavery prominently; in most, it is the main point.

Besides which, the smoking gun is in the constitution of the CSA. The changes that it has relative to the original USA constitution, again, feature slavery prominently - requiring federal recognition and enforcement of it , and barring any new states from not recognizing slavery.

For the North, the war was not entirely over slavery. For the South, that was the sole reason for it. Those are the facts.

Re: Go away slavery freak (3, Informative)

Raenex (947668) | about 6 months ago | (#47140397)

Gotta love the liberal revisionist history. If the civil war was only about slavery:

1) Why were there Union states that still allowed slavery?
2) Why did it take Lincoln two years AFTER the war started to deliver the emancipation proclamation?
3) Why were there Union states that still did not abolish slavery AFTER the emancipation proclamation and even AFTER the Civil War?

The answer is simple. Lincoln was willing to tolerate the status quo of slavery to preserve the Union. However, he was determined to prevent slavery from being established in the new territories. The South decided that wasn't good enough and decided to secede. The emancipation proclamation was meant to punish and undermine the states in rebellion.

You can argue that the war was also about the right of secession, but the issue of slavery was the cause for the split, and of that there is no doubt.

Re: Go away slavery freak (1)

Greystripe (1985692) | about 6 months ago | (#47141977)

Actually while slavery was highlighted (especially by the North and now the left) it was indeed about the States losing their rights. As with other rights such as our personal right to speech, you have the right to misuse it. There can and often are consequences to misusing it, however we should never allow the government to remove the right itself. So again it wasn't about slavery it was about rights that the States used to have and the Federal government removed. Fighting against slavery is a noble cause, as is fighting against terrorists and all the other bad things in the world that governments use as pretexts to removing rights. Sounds as though you agree that it was acceptable to remove the States' rights in order to fight slavery in the past. Do you also agree it is acceptable to remove our rights today to fight terrorists? If you looked into the laws being passed by Congress prior to the Civil War you would find that the South was being put in a serious bind. They were being forced to sell their raw goods to factories in the North at a lower price than they could get from European factories. Additionally laws were enacted that made creating their own factories difficult. And yes in addition to those items there was concern that they would be forced to give up the slave trade. It is much easier for most of us to do something that is good or good for us when we at least have some say in making that decision. Have you really never balked against doing something for no better reason than someone else was making you do it? I know I have and I have seen countless others do it also. The North and the South were both borrowing heavily from Europe for the first two years of the war. Can you guess what caused a very anti-slavery Europe to stop funding the South? That's right the North only struck down slavery because it would help them win the war not because of altruistic reasons.

Re: Go away slavery freak (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47142901)

Not exactly. Federal court cases at the time were about slave owners attempting to retrieve slaves who had crossed into anti slavery states. Once across they were deemed citizens, with all rights included... retrieval constituted kidnapping. Abolitionists crossing into slavery states to free slaves were guilty of theft only, as they had not retrieved a citizen. Slave states wanted the right to cross into antislavery states and ignore state rights to declare inhabitants born in the United States as citizens by kidnapping them. The southern side was as much anti state rights as the north. Both sides were on a course to strengthen the federal government over the declaration of citizenhood. And once you control citizenhood and definition of property what else do you need to control to overturn state law?
Do not forget that bond servant designations still existed at that time - slavery was not limited to race, just not exercised outside of race.

Revisionist history (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47143929)

The Southern States made no such arguments when they went to war. They declared war in response to Lincoln's election and his commitment that no new slave states would be added to the Union. PERIOD.

The FACT that the progressives have used the precedent of the Civil War and Lincoln's actions as a PRETENSE for ignoring the U.S. Constitution any time it interferes with their preferred policies is completely unrelated. It makes a nice "talking point" in Southern States where younger generations cannot understand how their ancestors could have been so warped and evil, and the intermediate generations did not like hearing thier parents denounced by their grandkids... but that's all it is. There is no record from the 1860's of any significant role of any argument other than slavery in the reasoning of the leaders of the Confederacy when they declared war. It is certainly true that the leaders of the Confederacy told their poor white footsoldiers that THEY were going off to war to fight and die for "states' rights" (and doubtless many footsoldiers fought in that mindset) .... BUT the only thing their leaders were concerned with was SLAVERY and their plantations.

The argument that Lincoln only freed the slaves as a war tactic is an intentionally dishonest manipulation; Lincoln and his newly-formed Republican party were on-record committed to ending slavery as a cause. The exact TIMING and SCOPE of the "Emancipation Proclamation" were indeed tactics in the war - Lincoln was a pretty smart guy. However, IF the Emancipation Proclamation itself, however, had only been a war tactic then it would have only been temporary and the 13th amendment would not have been ratified shortly after the war.

Sorry. Give it up. Slavery was illegitimate and vile and the entire cause of the Civil War.

While we're on the subject of misguided southernisms: The "Stars-and-Bars" is an evil slave rag, and NOT a general flag of a generic plucky "rebel" no matter HOW many times you've watched the "Dukes of Hazard". Anybody looking for a an honorable flag of rebellion-against-tyranny that is un-tainted by the stain of slavery can use a yellow Gadsden flag like TEA Partiers do.

Re: Go away slavery freak (1)

Raenex (947668) | about 6 months ago | (#47144521)

I'm not either of the Anonymous Cowards, but I fully endorse their replies:

1 [slashdot.org] , 2 [slashdot.org]

Re: Go away slavery freak (1)

airdweller (1816958) | about 6 months ago | (#47157863)

"it was indeed about the States losing their rights" and etc.
Yes, their right to keep other people as slaves.

PS. I hope you turn off your reality distortion device at least once in a while...

You're still failing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47143833)

I'm a conservative - and your attempts to pretend that pointing out the truth about slavery is "liberal revisionist history" is a complete joke.

"1) Why were there Union states that still allowed slavery?"

There are NO states currently allowing slavery...so ending slavery in ALL states WAS achieved. This argument you are raising is therefore only an argument about TIMING (in other words: why some states were subject to the emancipation proclamation before other states), which I will answer in response to your argument #2 (below)

"2) Why did it take Lincoln two years AFTER the war started to deliver the emancipation proclamation?"

This is well-documented in the national archives, and any reasonably well educated American already knows the answer. Lincoln explained it himself at the time. The Southern states started the war over the argument of whether new states added to the Union would be "free states" (as Lincoln insisted) or "slave states" (as the southerners insisted). It was an important fight because it would decide if all future majorities in the US House and US Senate would be pro-slavery or anti-slavery, and if Lincoln got his way the US would eventually end slavery; this was intolerable to the rich slave owners on their plantations in the south. Given that an immediate freeing of slaves was not the cause of the war, and given that some slave states (Kentucky, Missouri, Rhode Island,Delaware, West Virginia) stayed with the Union, an "emancipation proclamation" at the start of the war would have served no purpose other than to cause 5 Union states to waiver. When Lincoln finally did choose to issue the proclamation, the timing was driven by wartime conditions.

"3) Why were there Union states that still did not abolish slavery AFTER the emancipation proclamation and even AFTER the Civil War?"

Any well-educated person already know this, and anybody who did dot but who has read the above SHOULD be able to easily figure it out. I will explain it here though for the benefit of anybody who was raised by a family of bitter southern democrats spoon-fed for generations with racist bile. The war did not start over any proclamation, so the proclamation was a new fact added to a volatile situation (the Civil War). Lincoln chose to issue the proclamation at a time during the war when it was likely to benefit the war effort. The proclamation had no expiration date, so anybody it freed was going to be free forever (which is why they were free during the time after the proclamation but before the US Constitution was amended to ban slavery). The proclamation only freed the slaves in Southern states for three good reasons: [1] THOSE states were at war agains the Union and their economies depended on slavery, [2] THOSE states were full of black slaves who were more-likely to cause trouble for that side of the war as soon as they realized they'd be free if that side lost the war, and [3] Lincoln was not an IDIOT (the five states NOT covered had remained in the Union and were fighting in his side; freeing their slaves during the war could fracture the Union side of the fight)

Your three numbered arguments are really just one argument and they read like any other typical consiracy theory argument list ... a bunch of nit-picking that pretends to expose some hidden ulterior scheme BUT which is really just an attempt to convince poorly-educated idiots that there are a list of "unanswered questions" when the reality is that ebery one of the so-called quations was well-known and thoroughly-documented answers. This timeline explains:

[1] Slavery was common in colonies all around the world. It pre-dated the Declaration of Independence in the US.

[2] Over time, abolishonists advanced the cause of ending slavery, and state-by-state it was being made illegal and slaves were being freed

[3] Between the war of 1812 and the Civil War there was a balance of northern "free states" and southern "slave states"

[4] The southern states rebelled and started the Civil War when Lincoln won the presidency having campaigned on not allowing new slave states

[5] Four "slave states" did not rebel and one state (Virginia) split on the issue with both keeping slaves but "West Virginia" staying in the Union

[6] During the war, Lincoln issued the proclamation freeing the slaves in the southern states

[7] General Lee surrenders in April 1865, President Lincoln is assasinated 5 days later (unable to further free anybody).

[8] Various parts of the south surrender as they get news of Lee's surrender, the war finally truly ended in June 1865

[9] For this short time, all the southern slaves are free, but the slaves from the five union slave states still in slavery

[10] The 13th Amendment is passed in December 1865, ending all slavery in the US

In summary: all your stupid "arguments" are over the timing of the freeing of the slaves within a window of time measured in MONTHS during a WAR and its immediate aftermath. In context, this is the blink-of-an-eye given that slavery as an institution in North America had been in place for many decades (and slavery, as a human issue, had a history of THOUSANDS of YEARS)

"The Civil War started primarily because the South felt that their government no longer represented their interests."

BULL. Read the DAMN ARGUMENTS the South made publicly at the time! The Southern states made NO arguments as loudly as the argument over slavery. They did NOT complain over stuff like postage rates, rules governing coal or lumber, etc. EVERY argument the South made came back to slavery and they revolted when they did SPECIFICALLY because the new anti-slavery Republican party had just won the Presidential election with its anti-slavery candidate Abraham Lincoln. Wake up and become a civilzed human being... you did not cite a SINGLE specific non-slavery-related southern complaint that the south supposedly used at the time as part of your argument - because you HAD no such argument.

"It was an entirely fair assertion since Lincoln won without carrying a single Southern state."

No. Lincoln did not carry a single southern state because they were all slavery states and Lincoln had campaigned on blocking the further spread of slavery into new states and made it clear that he was personally opposed to slavery even in the slave states that already existed. In any state who's economy was based on slavery, a candidate who was going to end slavery was destined to lose the election; that's just common sense and the fact that you pretend anything else is evidence of just how completely pickled your brain must be.

" Those are the facts."

No, they're racist delusions passed-around among klan sympathizers and skin-heads. Give it up. Rich Southern Democrats owned slaves for over a century and they convinced poor Southern Democrats to support that system by [1] claiming that owning slaves was a "right" [2] making even the poorest most-illiterate southern white feel better than blacks [3] using blacks to do the really nasty work that would otherwise be done by poor whites. The slave owners panicked when Lincon won the whitehouse (knowing they'd lose their wealth and power if slavery ended) and they started the civil war - they recruited poor southern whites to fight claiming it was about "states' rights" (but the ONLY right the Confederacy was contesting was the "right to own slaves"). The whole thing was so corrupt and vile that if you look at an electoral map for the first post-civil war election, being a Democrat was as popular as being a NAZI in Germany in 1947 (everybody there was denying they'd ever BEEN one). Give it up. THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE WAY to justify the Confederacy and the Civil War it started by PRETENDING it was about ANYTHING BUT SLAVERY.

Re:Don't forget the 9th Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47140921)

Yeah, pity about all those enslaved human beings who won their freedom and the franchise as a direct result.

Fucker.

Re:the Putin stage (2, Insightful)

_xeno_ (155264) | about 6 months ago | (#47138289)

No, no, you're misreading the Constitution.

Don't forget the 0th Amendment: "Anything Congress say is interstate commerce is interstate commerce even if it never crosses state borders."

And the new 0.5th: "And if that doesn't work, it's a tax."

Re:the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138557)

You forgot the other big excuse they use: "It's about General Welfare."
And my reply continues to be: General Welfare should have been court martialed a long time ago.

Re: the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47139083)

Mod up

Re:the Putin stage (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 6 months ago | (#47138327)

It's to help identify those people susceptible to being bribed by terrorists.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 6 months ago | (#47139737)

What? No mentioning how it can be used to find pedophiles, drug dealers and criminal cartels?

Amateur. Here [wikipedia.org] , allow me to arm you with some arguments.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

C0R1D4N (970153) | about 6 months ago | (#47140901)

As opposed to private companies like Experian trading that info around?

Re:the Putin stage (2)

dmbasso (1052166) | about 6 months ago | (#47137241)

It is one more piece on the 1984 puzzle. It actually made me remember the movie What About Bob? [imdb.com] : baby steps to total information awareness / citizen extortion state, baby steps to police state, baby steps to fucking irrecoverable totalitarian oligarchy... hey, is that Winston Smith?

Re:the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47139437)

Posting anon - I modded you up +1 insightful not just for your comment, but because you referenced not just 1984 but a Bill Murray movie - and made both references 100% relevant. Kudos!

Re:the Putin stage (3, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 6 months ago | (#47137429)

It's a federal financial database, not state-run news agencies. Oh no! The government knows information that I already give other government agencies!

No, it's about the government snooping into a lot of information that it DOESN'T already have (on most people, anyway) and doesn't have any legitimate reason to have.

Since its inception, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been far more about snooping than protecting anybody. And now they're saying they're going to do something they were never supposed to do in the first place, and promised not to do.

If this doesn't bother you, you have your head in the sand.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137603)

No, it's about the government snooping into a lot of information that it DOESN'T already have (on most people, anyway) and doesn't have any legitimate reason to have.

It would help if stuff like this was highlighted in this kind of news, instead of stupid distractions like "Oh noes, the government might find out your SSN."

Re:the Putin stage (1)

jelIomizer (3670957) | about 6 months ago | (#47137975)

The "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" crowd always has their heads in the sand.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

Mr.CRC (2330444) | about 6 months ago | (#47142433)

But most people here cheered on the creation of a new agency to "protect" people after they were all "victimized" in the housing bubble that "no one saw coming."

As long as the cognitive dissonance persists that we can expand the regulatory state and yet also avoid NSA like powers aggregating in every government agency until the whole thing becomes totalitarian total information awareness, this will go on to its bitter end.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

nickberry (1226494) | about 6 months ago | (#47144193)

I never got that, exactly how many brokers have been prosecuted for putting a gun to people's heads and forcing them to sign a mortgage they couldn't afford.

Re:the Putin stage (3, Informative)

meerling (1487879) | about 6 months ago | (#47137561)

Last I heard, the government already has your financial information, through the IRS, and your social security number, they assigned the darned thing to you.

Re:the Putin stage (4, Insightful)

Dahamma (304068) | about 6 months ago | (#47138427)

Exactly, this is idiotic. You submit MUCH more financial information than this to the government every year.

Honestly credit ratings are one area that the government may be the *right* organization to control. The current credit agencies are for-profit businesses that have very little interest in keeping your information accurate (or investigating shady companies who try to use your credit rating as extortion) and you have very little recourse to fix their mistakes.

Re:the Putin stage (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 6 months ago | (#47137567)

In the 1850s, Austria-Hungary was in theory censoring all the printed media in the empire. But the technical reality was that there were fifty guys scribbling with quills who had virtually no ability to control what gets disseminated anywhere beyond the major newspapers and such. In the 2010s, USA and Europe in theory respects the laws protecting the privacy of individual citizen. But the technical reality is that the society is computerized to such a degree that stuff about people jumps at you even without you trying to find it.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

greenbird (859670) | about 6 months ago | (#47138807)

It's a federal financial database, not state-run news agencies.

I'm guessing you follow the main stream media in the US. I'm further guessing you still believe it. Because most knowledgeable rational people who actually look for real news sources have come to the realization that the main stream media in the US is pretty much state-run. One only has to look at the reporting on Snowden to realize that. Everything the main stream media has published about it could have easily been government press releases. Al Jazeera is a far better new source than anything put out by the supposed free press in the US.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

pooh666 (624584) | about 6 months ago | (#47142795)

I don't get what "state run" is suppose to mean, but excessively homogeneous oh hell yeah. It is much less clear who the people are influencing that homogeneity. Some of it is pure profit motive, that is clear enough, but the rest, like why is climate change always a "debate"? That is the scary stuff.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

greenbird (859670) | about 6 months ago | (#47144661)

I don't get what "state run" is suppose to mean

What I mean is that the government controls what the news reports. They don't do it directly but rather by quid pro quo between the media conglomerates and the government. If they actually reported things the government didn't want them to they would stop getting all those obscene laws passed (e.g. copyright) that allow them to maintain control of their industries. As one example, the interview that 60 minutes, one of the more respected investigative news shows when I was a young, did with Keith Alexander was ridiculous government scripted propaganda.

Re:the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47139061)

It's a federal financial database, not state-run news agencies. Oh no! The government knows information that I already give other government agencies!

If it already exists, then why are they asking for it again?

Use your head. I promise you it is going to be used for whatever the fuck they are NOT telling you.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 6 months ago | (#47140277)

If it already exists, then why are they asking for it again?

To cover up for the fact that they already have it.

You eat a cookie. Then you ask your mom if you can have a cookie. She says "No". You go "OK, you know best. I guess it's bad for my teeth". She won't suspect anything, because if you'd already taken one there'd be no point asking, would there?

Re:the Putin stage (1)

pla (258480) | about 6 months ago | (#47141297)

It's a federal financial database, not state-run news agencies. Oh no! The government knows information that I already give other government agencies!

Actually, no, they won't. Other than name, address, and social security number, the federal government's various agencies have me listed as a hyperspace navigator, a sith lord, an ethnic Jawara (no, not a Star Wars reference), President of the United States, a polygamist, a football fan... The more outlandish, the better.

The US constitution authorizes one, and only one, official data-mining survey, which I dutifully fill out (omitting all questions not directly related to apportionment of representation, of course - including the entirety of the "American Family Survey"). Everything else, I treat as no more legitimate than JD Powers surveys (thanks for all those $fives, BTW - By all means, do not add me to your do-not-contact list!).

As for taxes, sadly yes, one government agency knows my real income. But they don't ask any particularly obnoxious questions, and I only tell them things they already know (which makes one wonder why we need to bother filing personal income tax returns in the first place, but, meh).

Re:the Putin stage (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#47137207)

for real. civilization is how many years old now?? we made it this long without a having every single detail in a database, we dont need one now.

Re:the Putin stage (2)

x0ra (1249540) | about 6 months ago | (#47137253)

You do, because you live in a country where sub-prime rated folk think they can afford a $500000 mansion. And thus need the Government to prevent stupid.

Re:the Putin stage (4, Informative)

x0ra (1249540) | about 6 months ago | (#47137259)

btw, YES, I do believe that the whole mortgage crisis was caused not by banks, who merely provide a tool, but by the people with bad credit history thinking they can buy the american dream.

Re: the Putin stage (3, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | about 6 months ago | (#47137319)

You would think the banks would ha e an obligation to protect investors' money.

Re: the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138317)

Banks create their own money every time they make a loan. It has absolutely nothing to do with investors.

Re: the Putin stage (3, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 6 months ago | (#47139087)

You would think the banks would have an obligation to protect investors' money.

Banks were securitizing the bad loans and selling them off immediately.
They protected their investors money, it's the poor assholes who bought those fraudulently rated AAA bundled loans that weren't protected.

The people who want to blame this on government housing policy or sub-prime borrowers are the financial equivalent of climate change deniers (yes, I'm talking about the GP).
All of the official reports blame widespread fraud on the part of lenders.
Anyone who disagrees with this is in an alternate universe.

This was written in 2009 by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland:
Ten Myths about Subprime Mortgages
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2009/0509.cfm [clevelandfed.org]

This is the Senate Oversigh Report from 2011:
Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse (646 pages PDF)
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov//imo/media/doc/Financial_Crisis/FinancialCrisisReport.pdf [senate.gov]

This is the Congressional Report from 2011:
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report: Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf [gpo.gov] (663 pages PDF)

They lay out in extensively footnoted detail who was responsible and who wasn't, but I'll save you the trouble of reading them:
The collapse was caused by weak regulatory controls, conflicts of interest in the banking sector, lending fraud, credit ratings agencies' fraud, massive failures in risk management by the financial sector, and insufficient capital reserves.

These financial deniers need to cite legitimate research that supports their position.
At the bare minimum, supporting documents would need to lay out (with numbers) what deserves the blame.
Because the official reports say things like

Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loansâ"a proxy for subprime loansâ"had any connection to the [1977 CRA] law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law.

The facts are out there, if only you'd look past the media noise machines.

Re: the Putin stage (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 6 months ago | (#47139897)

The thing that burns me up about all this is that with everyone screaming for the government to "DO SOMETHING," the fact is that they aren't even trying to prosecute people for blatant violations of the law. There should be a lot of bank executives serving 20+ year sentences right now but they all get a pass for some reason. It's like the 9/11 fiasco. All those people who had all the info to stop the attacks and failed to do their jobs. Did anyone get fired? Nah! Let's pass a bunch of laws to strangle the American people's freedom. I guess they're right. It's our fault for electing idiots.

Re: the Putin stage (1)

airdweller (1816958) | about 6 months ago | (#47158019)

"There should be a lot of bank executives serving 20+ year sentences right now but they all get a pass for some reason."
Because what they did was not illegal. It still isn't. Las Vegas, baby.

Re: the Putin stage (1)

Kevin by the Beach (3600539) | about 6 months ago | (#47142135)

thank you, well said. I see other "good" that can be accomplished with this data. For example it places a copy of payroll information outside the "black box" of the IRS. so, a reasonable query would be "show me a list of people (including gender) who work for 'SOME BIG COMPANY' that have the same job title ordered by salary." I wonder how many class action lawsuits would come out of that :-)

Re: the Putin stage (1)

Derek Tutschulte (3680187) | about 6 months ago | (#47157815)

Why doesn't this flow originally from the politicians who eagerly fought for lending to folks with lower credit? They were literally sidestepping an entire ratings system already erected to make that decision. Because political winds were clearly headed towards relaxation of regulatory controls, we shouldn't be surprised that people jumped ahead of the curve in an order to capitalize off of this - it's what we do as capitalists. Or do I have my timeline bent to slant against liberal ideology? What's Congress's solution? More decision-making, of course.

Re:the Putin stage (3, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#47137329)

i agree that its not the banks fault. Its the people who bought the homes, but its also the governments fault for mandating banks make the loans

Re:the Putin stage (5, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 6 months ago | (#47137405)

i agree that its not the banks fault.

So a bank that hands somebody a few hundred thousand dollars without due diligence is not at fault?

While we're at it, what changed? I got my mortgage in 1999, and it came with all sorts of things beyond (a largely meaningless) credit check, like past tax returns showing level and continuity of income, disclosure of other debt, and all sorts of sniffing up my butt even though I have an honest face. What suddenly made banks so trusting? (hint: look up CDO's, CDS's, and all sorts of other three letter scams that were popular around 2000-2008).

i agree that its not the banks fault. Its the people who bought the homes, but its also the governments fault for mandating banks make the loans

Ah, the CRA red herring. Passed in 1977, but magically took 30 years before it had any ill effect.

Re:the Putin stage (5, Informative)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#47137431)

I believe there were changes made in the 90s that mandated banks give out more loans

Re:the Putin stage (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138119)

...and you believe incorrectly.

Re:the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47141115)

I believe most of the bad loans were sold off to other unsuspecting banks as AAA credit rated debt when the banks selling them knew for a fact they were not AAA grade.

The banks making the bad loans were then reselling them were making lots of money with none of the risk. Are you saying these 90s laws were what allowed that? Citation plz?

Re:the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47144701)

[citation needed]

Re:the Putin stage (5, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#47137459)

And that wasn't even the real problem. the collapse happened becasue there where taking c/d/f loan and bundling them up with A loans and calling the whole package an 'A'
And we are talking abut millions of loans being resold.

The collapse would never have happened if banks where forced to sit on a loan the made for 5 years.

Re: the Putin stage (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about 6 months ago | (#47138713)

Who was the stupid ignorant customer that was buying all these shitty repackaged loans?

That was me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47141119)

I bought a bunch of 'em. I wasn't stupid because they were insured by the federal government. AAA rating. It was like buying high-yield CDs. I bought ones that had been called, so I only held them for short periods of time, but I was part of the 'bailout' group. One day a bunch of investments vanished from my brokerage account, to be replaced by cash. No warning. No questions asked. It just happened.

Did I know how they were structured? Nope. I saw a called, AAA-rated, FNMA bond with X% yield and insurance by the federal government. Buy.

The idiocy here is that the game was set up to fail. The entire premise was that people with a poor track record of repaying loans should be allowed to take out large loans - and that the federal government would back those loans. With that kind of guarantee, of course people were going to buy those mortgages on the secondary market. If the government hadn't backed the investment, the packages would have been rated as junk bonds and they would have been dramatically less attractive as an investment. In my case, they would never have gotten on my investment radar. I don't go near junk.

Ultimately, it was government-backed gambling, and is an example of people messing with the rules of a system to the point where they break it. That is, too much government manipulation of the laws. Bureaucrats are fairly good at being reactive, but they're generally terrible at being proactive.

Re:That was me (1)

Mr.CRC (2330444) | about 6 months ago | (#47142469)

There you have it. Guaranteed by the government. The free market at work! I knew all those liberals that were bragging about how rich they were getting and laughed in my face before the crash when I told them it was a bubble, and who I predicted that after the crash would blame the free market, would blame the free market. And deny every single aspect of how the government created a completely artificial market.

Re:That was me (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about 6 months ago | (#47142977)

All good points, but your friends weren't liberal.

Re:the Putin stage (2)

stenvar (2789879) | about 6 months ago | (#47138101)

So a bank that hands somebody a few hundred thousand dollars without due diligence is not at fault?

At fault for what? They wasted their own money and the money of their investors, nothing more. Their kind of greed and stupidity punishes itself in a free market.

The injury from the mortgage "crisis" arises from the fact that the government forced people who spent their money prudently to bail out the banks and borrowers who had made stupid and greedy decisions.

Re:the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138375)

> The injury from the mortgage "crisis" arises from the fact that the government forced people who spent their money prudently to bail out the banks and borrowers who had made stupid and greedy decisions.

The ignorance here is stunning. So many self-appointed experts who don't know even the barest minimum of the details they pontifcate on.

The problem was that commercial banks are at the center of our entire fucking economy. The financial sector is nearly 10% of US GDP. [wikipedia.org] The system has evolved to the point where everything depends on them. If they go down, and stop lending everybody goes down. That fact plus their ability to leverage themselves 35:1 is what caused the crisis. Both of those things are the result of deregulation. It is a fucking house of cards and it isn't really any better today, they are still leveraged over 20:1.

Re:the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138379)

LOL at a free market.

1. There is no such thing as a free market.
2. Free markets would only reward the morally bankrupt.

Re:the Putin stage (3, Interesting)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 6 months ago | (#47140571)

1. There is no such thing as a free market.

The majority of American simply do not understand the term "free market" they believe that the "free" means free from regulation, yet nothing could be further from the truth. An economic market is not a "thing" it's a set of rules governing trade (eg:property law), a "set of rules" that's "free from regulation" is an oxymoron. "Free" actually refers to membership, in that everyone is free to participate in the market, provided they play by the rules. Some example of non-free markets - the international arms trade, nuclear fuel and waste industries, OPEC, etc.

Point 2 does not follow since point 1 uses the Fox News definition of "free market".

Re:the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47141553)

What free market? All of us mere peons were forced to cover their losses and given no say in the matter.

Re:the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138525)

Ah, the CRA red herring. Passed in 1977, but magically took 30 years before it had any ill effect.

You don't understaaaaand! Clinton did it, 6 years after Bush took office!

Re:the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138587)

Jesus will this stupid canard not die?

More than 50% of the subprime mortgages weren't even made by government-regulated banks, they were made by companies who figured they could get a shitload of money loaning cash to people without a job to buy a $200k house, and when they inevitably fail after paying a few thousand bucks, they get to keep the money they collected so far and sell the $250k house to someone else. Then they realized they didn't even have to wait for the guy to fail, they could pay rating agencies to rate the loans investment grade and sell them to suckers who thought they were getting a good deal.

GM (aka ditech.com) was making a fuckton of money right up until they weren't anymore. Then they had to kill their toy car side hobby in order to raise the cash to save their main business. Fannie and Freddie didn't die because they insured subprime loans ("subprime" is defined as "Fannie and Freddie won't insure this") they died because their dipshit management trusted the ratings agencies when they said "these securities are AAA rated" and pumped a lot of money into them, then when they needed to pay up for the prime loans that were foreclosing due to job losses etc, their investments were worthless.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

airdweller (1816958) | about 6 months ago | (#47158055)

Mod up!

Re:the Putin stage (2, Interesting)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 6 months ago | (#47140531)

Sigh, someone says to you stop paying off someone else's mortgage, I will lend you 500K but don't worry about the payments because the housing market is booming and the capital gains you make will pay off the loan for you. People with little financial knowledge who had never made such a large and complicated purchase were scammed by lenders who knew exactly what they were doing - increasing their commision revenue by not giving a flying fuck about the mess they left behind. This is why the banks stopped trusting each other and the whole thing came to sudden halt. In the financial world it's ok to rip off joe home buyer but it's not ok to try and palm off the problem to another bank.

Lax regulation allowed greed to take its natural course, it's like expecting a mugger not to mug you because you disbanded the police force. When the artificial housing bubble inevitably popped everybody lost out including the banks and the people who already owned their home outright (on the other side of the planet!!!). Greenspan was warned time and again this would happen, and when it did it damned near threw the world into another great depression. For every major fuck up there's always an ideologue somewhere at the bottom of it, the GFC is Greenspan's "legacy", not the fantasy of a libertarian paradise he had hoped for where everyone treats everyone else fairly when the government "gets out of the way".

Re:the Putin stage (1)

riondluz (726831) | about 6 months ago | (#47144489)

I know you probably won't see it, but it is entirely the Financial Industry's fault; that
includes Investment Banks or those that act like
one.

Here's the back-story; it starts with time-shares.
Do a google search on "David Siegel"
Sure, it was about making money; but it was more
about "everyman's" ability to 'own' a vacation
spot.

Take the results of the time-share industry,
commoditize it even more, turn the buyers into
profit-centers, sell that to the newly budding "investment" society and you get Wall Street
lobbiests and lawyers crafting both the opinions
and laws the bought-off politicans create.

It's pretty easy for the willing get chumped, but
this package was far to toxic by half. Pure greed.
From top to bottom.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#47137447)

well, you are demonstrably wrong. This is thoroughly investigated, but hey, you don't let facts change your narrative. The next thing you know you'll have to start applying thought to your biases, and you can't have that, can you?

Re:the Putin stage (1)

zenasprime (207132) | about 6 months ago | (#47138135)

Not caused by banks? So all those bank executives who were bundling up bad mortgages together and selling them as premium mortgages so that they could make made money off of bad investments had absolutely nothing to with it.

I'm going to just make a wild guess and say that you know nothing about what actually happened.

Re: the Putin stage (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about 6 months ago | (#47138725)

Who was the stupid rube that was buying these loans?

Re: the Putin stage (1)

zenasprime (207132) | about 6 months ago | (#47138757)

Doesn't matter. It's called fraud. It's a criminal offense.

Re: the Putin stage (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about 6 months ago | (#47138769)

Oh it does matter. Without a willing customer there is no sale. Who was the customer that created such a huge market for shitty loans?

Re: the Putin stage (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47139239)

Without a willing customer there is no sale

Well, seeing as how everyone needs a place to live, you are not exactly putting out an image that bank executives were anything but sociopaths.

Why you seem to think basic shelter, the necessities to live (nevermind prosper) is merely a "customer preference" speaks volumes.

The main thing is that your actions do not affect anyone else, and it is not your responsibility that anyone else lives or dies. Give yourself a reward, for winning the "head furthest up their own ass" contest!

No, really, as long as the view inside your ass is good, and you think that your leftover shit aroma smells good, who CARES that you took a giant dump over the nation. You have your own luxury anus to return to. All the shit is outside, and no longer your problem.

The nation was just ASKING to be shit on, you were just giving them what they wanted!

Re: the Putin stage (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about 6 months ago | (#47141537)

I'm not talking about the homeowner, AC. I'm talking about the people who were buying sub prime mortgages.

Re: the Putin stage (1)

Specter (11099) | about 6 months ago | (#47146783)

No, but you should be. Reckless, greedy homeowners were as complicit in the scam and subsequent collapse as any of the financial middlemen. But for the legions of people who were willing and enthusiastic participants in committing this fraud there would have been no bubble and no collapse.

Re: the Putin stage (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 6 months ago | (#47147897)

The homeowners were, in general, told that they couldn't lose. They were greedy, like everybody else, but by and large they weren't reckless. As long as property values continued to climb, they were largely insulated from loss, and they often relied on the misrepresentations of the lender.

The subprime borrowers were not necessarily honest, but it didn't have the effects of fraud, since nobody believed their lies. The lenders knew perfectly well which subprime borrowers had not provided documentation for income or assets, and deliberately made the loans anyway. This was the period where "liar's loans" and "ninja loans" ("no income, jobs, or assets") became popular phrases. The problem was not that lenders were duped by unscrupulous borrowers, the problem was that lenders were deliberately making bad loans because they could make money by doing so. They were able to sell the mortgages, or at least some profits and most of the risks, by packaging them up in various ways (selling off tranches, mixing with actual good loans, coming up with securities that were basically bets on how many would go boom).

Re: the Putin stage (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about 6 months ago | (#47139351)

The point is that the customer did not know that the loans were shitty. They were packaged in with some good loans, then the whole package was rated highly. When the customers, like Bear Stearns and other investment banks, bought a package, they weren't told "It has 90% C through F loans and 10% A loans", they were told "The package is rated an A". The fraud was on the part of both the bank and the ratings agencies, which were AFAIK "independent" - as in, not officially affiliated with a bank, but paid to lie about the quality of the loans in the package.

Re: the Putin stage (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about 6 months ago | (#47141551)

When these greedy, shrewd corporations like Bear Stearns bought these repackaged loans, they didn't inspect the goods before purchase? Do you think corporations get big and rich by being stupid?

Re: the Putin stage (1)

Mr.CRC (2330444) | about 6 months ago | (#47142557)

They were rated by once independent agencies who would loose their reputations if they gave bunk ratings, who were then mandated to rate them which changed their incentives to rate them all as bowls of cherries, so they would be the ones chosen to do the ratings.

Re: the Putin stage (1)

Mr.CRC (2330444) | about 6 months ago | (#47142555)

And why is that? Because of the free market? Lack of regulation? No, because the government mandated that the credit rating agencies be used to rate the packaged loans, which fucked up the incentives to rate them legitimately. Mike Shedlock wrote a good article about this, but I can't find it now.

Basically it's like this, everyone (the tiny minority, that is) who saw it coming before-hand knew damn well that it was perverse incentives created by government mandates, guarantees, and implicit guarantees, plus all out fraud that nobody believed (correctly) that they would be punished for, which caused the bubble.

Predictably, those who didn't see it coming, would, after the fact, suddenly become experts on what happened with their interpretations of events strictly following partly lines.

And both sides of the group that didn't see it coming--Rs and Ds, supported bailouts.

Re: the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47139363)

Err, so if you lie to the customer about the quality of your product, he is responsible for your conduct?

Clearly some customers could have done more research and figured out that something shady was going on, but previously trustworthy institutions were lying about the quality of their investment instruments. Surely the customer is responsible to some degree if they could have independently discovered the corruption, but it's absurd to suggest that the customers were solely responsible for what was obviously fraud.

Re: the Putin stage (1)

Bartles (1198017) | about 6 months ago | (#47141565)

Unless the customer is being directed by politicians, knows the loans are shitty, but buys the loans anyway because they know the taxpayer will get them off the hook. Who might that customer be?

Re: the Putin stage (1)

Mr.CRC (2330444) | about 6 months ago | (#47142573)

Let me guess, Fanny and Freddie, with Bawney Fwank giving blow jobs to one of their CEOs.

Re: the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47141475)

Without the fraudulent ratings the loan packages are a great investment. A lot of large funds bought the loan packages. When the GFC hit, my superannuation fund (retirement fund) went from a few thousand dollars down to ~$250.

Re:the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138475)

I hope you mean middle age baby boomers buying and flipping homes looking for a quick buck. People who had savings and jobs, but got more mortgages and didn't care about the houses they bought unless they could make a quick buck off of selling them. Yes, those people are the ones that caused the bubble and never got blamed by the media like they should have.

And the right wing in Congress hated this agency, so I wouldn't be surprised if they were behind this negative smear.

Re:the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138805)

Sorry, but regulations should be in place to keep people from defrauding the government, which is essentially what was going on. Get a mortgage you know you can't pay, and will eventually default on? Fraud. There should have been regulations in place from keeping such a thing from a occurring.

Given the oppurtunity, most people will take something for nothing. This is a case of just that. The Government, and banking, know that full well. They just decided to ignore it for, well, who knows why.

Re:the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47139021)

Given the oppurtunity, most people will take something for nothing. This is a case of just that. The Government, and banking, know that full well. They just decided to ignore it for, well, who knows why.

Bankers did so out of greed for money.

Government did so out of greed for control.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

Mr.CRC (2330444) | about 6 months ago | (#47142589)

Why does there have to be "2000" pages of regulations for everything?!?! It's just a fucking law: Fraud is illegal. Period. It's a one-liner.

But it's no good if the law isn't enforced. And if the government is funded by the very same mechanisms it's trying to regulate, then the law, predictably, won't be enforced.

Re:the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47139111)

btw, YES, I do believe that the whole mortgage crisis was caused not by banks, who merely provide a tool, but by the people with bad credit history thinking they can buy the american dream.

The banks have been dealing with the overall level of stupidity and ignorance of bad debtors for decades prior.

And they used to be smart enough to tell someone not only no but fuck no . You're not even close to qualifying. Not even fucking close.

So, don't give me this shit the banks are absolved here. They knew damn well what would happen when you hand the average dumb fuck a loan that is double what they can actually afford, and they did it over and over again.

Re:the Putin stage (4, Insightful)

pr0t0 (216378) | about 6 months ago | (#47139275)

Then you haven't put much thought into it. People with bad credit history (or good) are utterly incapable of forcing a bank to lend them money. The decision to lend money for a mortgage is at the sole discretion of the lender. They alone decide if the credit-worthiness of the borrower justifies the loan. They created the sub-prime packages for investors in hedge funds, and they alone then bet against those packages...YES, the very packages they created! The government didn't force them to make those loans. That whole thing was built as an investment vehicle by the banks, allowing wealthy Americans to purchase the debt owed on sub-primes with higher interest rates, thus higher ROI. And everyone ate it up: the investors, the lenders, and the least qualified to know what the hell was going on...the borrowers.

I witnessed this shady practice first-hand as a first-time home buyer (my credit was fine though). I went to a broker and told him what I could comfortably afford for a mortgage payment (including taxes, insurance, etc.). I asked, based on that figure how much can I offer on a house. He gave me an amount, and I went house shopping. I found a home, made an offer, and he came back with a mortgage payment that was 25% more than what I said I could afford. Needless to say, I was pissed and told him off. 25% isn't a lot when you are talking about dinner, but it's hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars when talking about a mortgage. When I stopped the deal, the real estate agent called the broker to find out what was going on. He told her that he didn't know what the problem was...I was approved, I just didn't like the price. That in itself is telling. They approved me for a loan that was well in excess of what I already told them I could comfortably afford. Then the real estate agent, a licensed realtor mind you, told me that since I made the offer I was legally bound to honor it (total bullshit).

It may be more cleaned up now, but back in 2007, I think everyone involved in real estate became a con artist drunk on the promise of easy riches. I of course cannot speak to the motives of every person who got a sub-prime mortgage loan, but blaming people with bad credit for that crisis feels a lot like blaming the victims. It's possible these people, knowing their financial straights, would have never even considered buying a home. But here comes a letter from First National Never Trust telling them, "Hey, it's not as bad as you think!. You can OWN your house for just a bit more than you're paying in rent." And they trot out spreadsheets and graphs to back up that claim. So the financially challenged are thinking, "Wow, I had no idea! Sure!". You can buy that mail list you know. Give me every person in the United States who pays rent and has a sub-650 credit rating (or whatever the number). They're ambulance chasers.

And you want to blame the borrower for that? Wow. That's just willful ignorance; a total lack of understanding that companies, like people, need to take responsibility for their actions; and a complete lack of empathy for people being emotionally prayed upon by those companies.

Please, get off my planet.

Re:the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47140411)

Who were the assholes that decided in a 'democratic society' we should apply bullshit credit ratings to everything? I agree with you, but this crap has gone on long enough, again the federal government and your politicians have allowed oopholes that favor monopolistic banking systems. The only way you can get anywhere is if your minority or an immigrant.

It is almost as if the this system is setup to force people from using cash only. If you do, you will not have a low, if any credit rating at all, this has gotten out of control with systems favoring corporations and f'in over the people that made them corporations. Everyone quit playing the game except those 1% the country/corporations would crumble overnight

Re:the Putin stage (1)

Raenex (947668) | about 6 months ago | (#47140419)

You can't absolve the borrowers. Somebody with bad credit and a low-income job has to know that they really can't afford a McMansion. Everybody involved was going on a binge.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

surd1618 (1878068) | about 6 months ago | (#47141263)

that companies, like people, need to take responsibility for their actions

Re:the Putin stage (1)

Raenex (947668) | about 6 months ago | (#47144483)

I of course cannot speak to the motives of every person who got a sub-prime mortgage loan, but blaming people with bad credit for that crisis feels a lot like blaming the victims . It's possible these people, knowing their financial straights, would have never even considered buying a home. But here comes a letter from First National Never Trust telling them, "Hey, it's not as bad as you think!. You can OWN your house for just a bit more than you're paying in rent." And they trot out spreadsheets and graphs to back up that claim. So the financially challenged are thinking, "Wow, I had no idea! Sure!". You can buy that mail list you know. Give me every person in the United States who pays rent and has a sub-650 credit rating (or whatever the number). They're ambulance chasers.

And you want to blame the borrower for that? Wow. That's just willful ignorance; a total lack of understanding that companies, like people, need to take responsibility for their actions; and a complete lack of empathy for people being emotionally prayed upon by those companies.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 6 months ago | (#47147933)

Hint: somebody with a bad credit rating is most likely bad at figuring out what he or she can afford. That's one of the main ways you get a bad credit rating.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

Raenex (947668) | about 6 months ago | (#47149583)

Hint: Or they are just irresponsible and live beyond their means.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 6 months ago | (#47151989)

Are you actually disagreeing with me? I don't think people set out to spend more than they can possibly make. I think they mostly wind up like that because they're really crappy with money.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

Raenex (947668) | about 6 months ago | (#47152955)

Are you actually disagreeing with me?

I thought it was pretty obvious.

I don't think people set out to spend more than they can possibly make.

You're a responsible person who makes an effort to live within your means. There are many people who do not, and it isn't because they can't, it's because they do not want to.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

Kevin by the Beach (3600539) | about 6 months ago | (#47142159)

Amen (translation.... I Believe)

Re:the Putin stage (0)

spectrumlogic (2497494) | about 6 months ago | (#47141667)

TROLL ... makes me 50 shades of sad. Please...allocate the time and energy to understand something before you speak definitively about it. The mortgage crisis was caused by the implied leverage of insured investments...which became a global pathology in the banking/investment industry. This TROLL is akin to blaming the sheep for being eaten at the watering hole because they must drink. It became an epidemic because the institutionals made so much money running it up. What occurred was criminal at so many levels it is apparent this simplistic, deflective troll is beyond absurd and insulting. HOW DOES THIS GET MODDED UP TO 5...INFORMATIVE?

Re:the Putin stage (1)

airdweller (1816958) | about 6 months ago | (#47158007)

"I do believe that the whole mortgage crisis was caused not by banks"

"Remember, kids, there's no stupid answers, only stupid people... Yes, Eric?" (c)

Re:the Putin stage (1, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#47137325)

who can we blame for that? Id say its the governments fault for mandating the banks give out the loans to people the banks knew couldnt pay for them. I believe this happened under clinton? im not 100% however

Re:the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138145)

you are, however, 100% incorrect.

  Discussing the reasons for the Clinton administration's proposal to strengthen the CRA and further reduce red-lining, Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury at that time, affirmed his belief that availability of credit should not depend on where a person lives, "The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live."

Re:the Putin stage (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 6 months ago | (#47140327)

Commercial real estate wasn't in scope of the CRA and it was hit as much - or even more - than residential property.

Re:the Putin stage (0)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 6 months ago | (#47137983)

We dont need the government to prevent people from lending risky people large sums of money. If they do that they go out of business (Or at least, thats how its SUPPOSED to work).

Of course when you have government regulation forcing a lending bureau to lend to those people, you have a bit of a problem.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 6 months ago | (#47140333)

When that happens you come right back and let us know, OK?

Re:the Putin stage (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about 6 months ago | (#47138433)

$500,000 mansion? What state do you live in? No, scratch that. What century do you live in??

Re:the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47147845)

Posting anon since I already modded, but let's turn that aroud - where do you live? On the coasts, yes, $500k will buy what is basically considered a "normal" middle class home, aside from the fact that most of the middle class can't actually afford to pay that. However, in large parts of the midwest and south, that same amount will easily buy a new or recently renovated McMansion.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about 6 months ago | (#47152529)

Actually, no. On the coasts $500k can now barely buy a 1 BR condo.

In the (somewhat upscale) suburban Midwest, $500k can barely buy a normal middle class home.

Maybe in theory in some areas of the Midwest and South $500k could buy a "McMansion", but how many people really build mansions in the middle of a depressed economic area? Not that many. The subprime mortgage crisis was not caused by giant loans for McMansions, it was caused by giant loans for normal houses.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 6 months ago | (#47138753)

> You do, because you live in a country where sub-prime rated folk think they can afford a $500000 mansion. And thus need the Government to prevent stupid.

That's entirely the result of corrupt bankers lying to those sub-prime rated folks. You are trying to fault the least qualified and experienced member of that exchange and going out of your way to ignore the people that are supposed to be "the adults it the room".

Bankers should act like they have something to lose but don't because an entire framework has been built for them to avoid such silly ideas.

The Banker does it for a living. He's not some schmuck off the street.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | about 6 months ago | (#47139443)

You have that backwards. The government bailing out the (insolvent) banks was the cause of the current financial crisis. Someone would have bought up the remaining assets after they went bankrupt(including your mortgage), insurance would have covered people's bank accounts, the (new) banks would have learned from their mistakes and not done that again. No government intervention required.

Re:the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47141799)

You do, because you live in a country where sub-prime rated folk think they can afford a $500000 mansion. And thus need the Government to prevent stupid.

If the government didn't bail out banks, the market would solve this problem pretty quickly.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 6 months ago | (#47140417)

Never heard of the doomsday book [wikipedia.org] , huh? Seriously, you have to go back to a time before the Babylonians to find a a bunch of barbarians that did not collect financial information on their citizens.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 6 months ago | (#47137959)

There are primaries going on in the coming weeks in many states. If you are not voting in them, you shouldnt be complaining. If you ARE, you pretty much dont have a reason to complain about the voting in this country.

Protip, we have cycled leaders a number of times while Putin has remained in charge in Russia.

Quit encouraging apathy; if you think there is a problem go vote.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about 6 months ago | (#47138461)

If you ARE, you pretty much dont have a reason to complain about the voting in this country.

Except with the current 2 party system, primaries are useless to the minority party in many districts. Not to mention national-level elections are more determined by the amount of money spent than actual positions, which was his point. If the Koch brothers want to spend millions on a candidate, they usually win. There's plenty of reason to complain...

Re:the Putin stage (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 6 months ago | (#47141443)

If the Koch brothers want to spend millions on a candidate, they usually win.

And if Bloomberg wants to spend millions on a candidate, they usually win too.

Note that there are billionaires on both sides of the spectrum buying votes.

Re:the Putin stage (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about 6 months ago | (#47142871)

Never said anything to the contrary. Democrat or Republican, the comment about rich oligarchy has a fair amount of truth in the US.

For example, the Bay Area has a Congressional race between old tech money Mike Honda and new tech money Ro Khanna. Both Democrats.

Due to recent election reforms it's actually an interesting race. The primary is non-partisan, so the top 2 vote getters go to the general election. Of course, interesting doesn't necessarily mean better. People with money will always find ways to use that money to fuck up good intentions (in this case Honda's PAC is actually supporting the Republican candidate to try to keep Khanna from coming in second. Despicable, IMO. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47139369)

Yeah, if you can't vote for one of your two corrupt choices, you shouldn't complain! lol

Re:the Putin stage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138369)

This is where they start collecting all your financial info, not just from tax sources, but private ones, so they can drain you as much as they possibly can in their opression plans.

Few of them, many of us, revolt NOW!!!

Re:the Putin stage (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | about 6 months ago | (#47139417)

The government already has all this info, from the credit rating agencies. Putting all this info into government computers means it's covered by legal safeguards that don't (seem) to apply to privately owned records. The only news here is that some government agency can't be bothered (can't afford?) to buy your info from the credit agencies.

And (1)

NewYork (1602285) | about 6 months ago | (#47144679)

"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." --George Santayana

Re:the Putin stage (1)

jedrek (79264) | about 6 months ago | (#47145209)

I'd personally much rather have a single credit rating database, run by an accountable government body with clear rules and regulations concerning who has access to my data and how, along with a clear-cut procedures for updating and correcting the data, than the status quo: three private, opaque, for-profit organizations that are not accountable to any public entity.

Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137031)

I see no way in which have all these life-defining records collected all neatly in one place could ever possibly be a failure of an idea.

Re: Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137055)

It just makes collecting and verifying taxes owed so much easier... Oh, you made a big purchase... In cash? Red flag! You are living outside of your mans, another red flag. Hurray for "random" audits! Our government exists to keep us citizens honest, and that is why we trust them.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137057)

Give me an example that would make me think this isn't just useful aggregate economic data that they basically already had. It was the word "compelled" wasn't it? That was what got you all worried that the government was intruding on your life.

They already collect taxes and your SSN is issued by them. Who cares if they aggregate that (note, for our benefit).

Re:Awesome! (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 6 months ago | (#47138359)

Aw, you still think they do things for our benefit. How cute. And naive.

Nothing the government does is for our benefit.

Re:Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138535)

Schools, parks, police protection, firefighters, roads, clean water, security, etc...

The government does provide a benefit, despite people like you. What have the paranoid gov-haters ever done for me? What a messed up country your way of thinking would create.

Re:Awesome! (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 6 months ago | (#47146101)

You confuse something that benefits with something done FOR your benefit. I know, it's hard when you're AC with barely two neurons to smack together, but there is a big difference.

Those things are ALL done for their benefit. Any benefit to you is incidental.

Re:Awesome! (1)

airdweller (1816958) | about 6 months ago | (#47158107)

Awww. A troll. How cute.

Credit rating databases aren't new (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137047)

As opposed to the private credit rating agencies that have all your personal credit information with zero transparency and accountability?

I'd rather this be in the public sphere where hopefully the agency has my interests at heart, rather than some private, for profit corporation.

Of course I live in Soviet-Canuckastan, so my opinion may differ from my "freedom loving free marketer loving" cousins to the south...

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1, Interesting)

bmo (77928) | about 6 months ago | (#47137173)

As opposed to the private credit rating agencies that have all your personal credit information with zero transparency and accountability?

Remember the ol' "OH NOES DEATH PANELS" panic and propaganda that Fox, the Tea Pottyers, and Sarah Palin were trying to sow? I found it hilarious, considering I had HMO coverage through United Health at the time.

Even a 1% public interest (what this is) is better than the anti-public-interest we have right now.

Soviet-Canuckistan

We demand the freedom to be fucked by corporate interests! I demand to pay twice as much as Canadians do and get worse healthcare!

--
BMO

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (2, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#47137223)

except for we in a round about way already do have the death panels

remember the little girl who needed an organ transplant? she was told no and they actually had to bring it to court to save this girls life

now all the news about secret waiting lists at the VA deciding who has to wait months and months for treatment could be called death panels

you guys made fun of us for being concerned of abuse. well, now we can actually see the abuse

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137265)

remember the little girl who needed an organ transplant? she was told no and they actually had to bring it to court to save this girls life

now all the news about secret waiting lists at the VA deciding who has to wait months and months for treatment could be called death panels

Oh yeah, and private insurers never denied coverage to anyone, acting as "death panels" in your terminology. Nope.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (2, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#47137355)

I never said they didnt. but my argument was never that private insurance did not do that. the government said they would not do that, and laughed as us for believing they would... yet here they are proving us right. Learn to focus on the topic at hand. Next your gonna tell me its bushes fault as well right?

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (3, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#47137475)

They don't do that. You are twisting facts to fit your lame argument.

Tea Parties definition is:
Death panels = Determining which elderly would get care.
which is false.

Some management at an organization breaking the law is nothing like the death panels issue.

Stop lying to fit things into your narrative.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (3, Informative)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#47137533)

im not lying at all. as you pointed out I guess we could use different definitions of death panels, but the facts are simple. Burocrats deciding who lives or die rather than doctors. it is a fact, it did happen and they admitted it happened.

we can argue all day about whos definition is correct or not, or we can work towards making sure it doesnt happen again

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138401)

Dude, of course it will happen again. It is the inevitable result of constrained resources. Somebody, somewhere has to say no. Whether it is an accountant at a private insurance company or an accountant in the government, it doesn't matter. As long as there is more demand for critical healthcare than there is supply there will be "death panels."

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47140699)

It is false for now for the simple reason that Obama hasn't delivered any cost containment yet and that the system hasn't gotten going yet. "Death panels", i.e., government panels who decide who is worth treating and who is left to die, are coming, because that's a necessary consequence of cost containment; and they exist in all systems that operate like Obamacare.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

EvanED (569694) | about 6 months ago | (#47137583)

I'm not going to Bush's fault you. What I will say was that all the "omg death panels" nonsense was presented as if there was some change from the current status quo, or at least without saying "omg this moves the death panels from the companies to the gov't! oh noes!" It was presented as if the death panels were an argument against gov't health care, while that argument would then equally (or, arguably, more, as private health care has a direct profit motive and government health care can at least pretend to not) apply to "we should scrap the current system."

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about 6 months ago | (#47138191)

Unfortunately both sides completely lied about that issue. My side about death panels being new if we go govt. healthcare, and your side about death panels being not if we go govt. healthcare.

When in actuality what it really boils down to is whether one thinks that the death panel effect would be worse under the cost-cutting and profit motive of private healthcare, or the cost-cutting and social engineering motive of public healthcare. (And I suspect the answer to that is simply whether one is on the political Left or Right.)

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138421)

> social engineering motive of public healthcare

That is a new concept to me. Social engineering in healthcare? Like letting smokers die of cancer just because they are smokers? That seems .... unlikely. I could see someone being refused an organ transplant because their other characteristics mean its likely that they will die soon anyway. But that's expected to be a neutral decision based on statistical analysis of previous patient outcomes. I could see an individual putting their thumb on the scale in that analysis, but that wouldn't qualify as a government policy, just one individual playing god.

So, what do you really mean by social engineering here?

You completely missed the point (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138391)

The Obama-friendly press in the US completely mis-represented the "death panel" argument and then repeatedly "reported" on it in ways that thoroughly confused the issue. People NOW are so confused most do not believe there are any panels, and most think those panels are, at worst, waiting lists (a bad form of rationing by delaying) that are in some way like what private insurance has done all along (this was a DNC talking point back in 2008).

The core point that people like Sarah Palin pointed out as a "death panel" was that the ACA sets up a panel of people who are appointed, (therefore will be unknown to and unnacountable to the public) are not required to be medical people, (politicians can appoint any bureaucrats or lobbyists they want with any agenda) who will determine what treatments are "effective", (a subjective judgement which could be base on anything individual panelists care to use including federal spending, contributions by drug companies, etc) and that doctors and hospitals will eventually be forbidden to provide any service or drug not authorized by the panel.

In other words: If you are sick or injured a panel of unaccountable government people will decide whether you live or die (based on whatever criteria they personally choose to use) and even though your doctor or hospital might have a way to save you they'll be banned from using it by federal law. The penalties will be stiff enough that no hospital or doctor will violate those rules. Your only way to survive in those situations will be to go to Washington and go before that panel and convince them you are worth saving... but you'll probably never even get that chance because you'll probably never even know their names and never be granted an audience. These parts of "Obamacare" start as "advisory" but over time they are scheduled to kick-in as mandatory - including the restrictions of care deemed "not effective" (again, without legal standards and therefore left to the whims of the panelists)

This is VERY different from the way things have always been! Pre-ACA, such panels could exist to control costs within a hospital or insurance company, but an individual could always go to some other hospital or insurance company and even appeal to the courts if needed. When such things got too offensive, they got the attention of the public and people would turn to other companies so the offending companies had to step-back in order to keep customers and stay in business. Now with the government in charge of such rationing there is NOBODY to whom an individual can turn either for an alternative (the businesses are all under the same federal rules) or to appeal (the government you'd appeal to is the one you are fighting) and the government will not allow people to go to a competitor (Canada, Japan, etc will not be allowed to offer alternative regulations in the US for Americans to select from).

Claim this is all nonsense? OK... simple test: WITHOUT GOOGLING please name all fifteen members of the IPAB, and as a bonus: what are their educations, job histories, and wall st investment interests? Did you even get the names right? Do you think your doctor or your member of congress will know these people or be willing to cross them (most members of congress are afraid to confront the IRS over their OWN interests, to say nothing of actually confronting the IRS for the benefit of a constituent.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 6 months ago | (#47140741)

It was presented as if the death panels were an argument against gov't health care, while that argument would then equally (or, arguably, more, as private health care has a direct profit motive and government health care can at least pretend to not) apply to "we should scrap the current system."

The argument doesn't apply to private health care. While individual providers may make bad choices, once their policies become known, you can move to a different provider (at least you could, if we actually had a choice in health care).

What Obamacare gives insurance providers and hospitals is a central point to impose profit-maximizing healthcare requirements on every "competitor" in the market. That means that painful, costly and profitable end of life care will expand and you will be forced to pay for it because it will become part of the "basic standard of care" required by Obamacare. We have already seen that happen. Whether that care actually meaningfully expands your lifespan or wellbeing is simply not a concern, and even if you figure out that it doesn't, you will have to pay for it, and you may even be forced to undergo that treatment.

You're operating under the mistaken assumption that health outcomes improve with money spent. That's not true even if the money were spent rationally, and it is certainly not true once you combine a profit-maximizing hospital with a highly regulate market and lobbyists.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 6 months ago | (#47148007)

You can, perhaps, go to another doctor or hospital if one doesn't want to provide the care you want. This still exists.

You were not going to be able to go to another insurance company. If you tried, you'd either be denied outright, or told that your current problems are a pre-existing condition and would not be covered. Under the ACA, you're much better protected from having your coverage cancelled because you're getting too expensive, and you have a much better opportunity to change insurance companies.

Similarly, the system wound up paying for a whole lot of extremely expensive and mostly pointless end-of-life care. I suspect what's reducing that is the "living will" concept, which predates the ACA and has nothing to do with it. Your idea that the ACA would force you to undergo unwanted care is of course ridiculous.

In other words, the complaints you have about the ACA, however valid, also apply to the system before the ACA. I'm not a great fan of lots of the ACA, but that's because the ACA was battered to the point where it doesn't fix much of what you've complained about.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 6 months ago | (#47149701)

You were not going to be able to go to another insurance company.

Not after you were sick. But an insurance company that got a bad reputation would start losing healthy customers and money. Any insurance system that provides legal guarantees that individuals can switch insurance companies after they have a claim cannot work, because it rewards bad insurance companies.

Under the ACA, you're much better protected from having your coverage cancelled

Individually you benefit when you get sick, but at the cost of everybody else and the health of the entire system. In the end, we all lose.

In other words, the complaints you have about the ACA, however valid, also apply to the system before the ACA.

Yes, the system before ACA was broken, but the ACA failed to address its problems; instead, the ACA was merely a fig leaf for even more tax payer handouts to insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, and the elderly, as well as a stealth increase in welfare. ACA is a political "thank you" by Obama to his rich donors, plus vote buying; it represents everything that's wrong with money in US politics.

but that's because the ACA was battered

That might be a valid argument if ACA opponents actually had had input on the legislation and if it had passed both houses as a compromise. But that's not what happened. The Obama administration authored and pushed through the ACA against the strong and universal objections of Republicans.

Therefore, the only people to blame for this turd of legislation and crony capitalism, and the missed opportunity to fix the US health care system, lies with the Obama administration.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 6 months ago | (#47149809)

Sorry, I need to clarify:

Not after you were sick. But an insurance company that got a bad reputation would start losing healthy customers and money.

That's how it would work under a free market system. It didn't work that way pre-ACA: pre-ACA, as post-ACA, market mechanisms didn't operate for health insurance companies, largely because of a perverse incentive system created by the federal government.

The real reform we should have gotten would have been to give the tax breaks we used to give employers to individuals (employers could still give their employees money for health insurance, of course) and transition the system to an individual market. Furthermore, while employers might have special "risk pools" on hiring, the contracts between insurance companies and employees should have become individual contracts that are intrinsically portable.

Instead, the ACA keeps all the b.s. tax breaks and still doesn't give us portable insurance. All you get is a lousy, tiny, overpriced, subsidized niche market for people who otherwise fall through the cracks.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 6 months ago | (#47151977)

More people can shop for insurance now than before, since they don't have to stick with one insurance company because of pre-existing conditions. This is a considerable benefit. Moreover, the ACA actually does facilitate comparing health policies, by requiring them to all cover certain things, and allowing side-by-side comparisons, also valuable. I really don't see the downside in making sure people's medical expenses are more or less covered when they get sick.

BTW, Obama sucks at getting his programs through Congress. The ACA mostly got battered by Democrats. Republicans, of course, recognized a signature bill from a Democrat and set out to defeat it, or at least be seen opposing it.

I regard it as a flawed step forward. I believe this will help millions of Americans, and once we get used to universal coverage we might be able to change it for the better.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 6 months ago | (#47152579)

I really don't see the downside in making sure people's medical expenses are more or less covered when they get sick.

The downside is that people don't have to bother making prudent decisions: they are effectively covered no matter what, and if they pick a bad insurance company, they just switch later. As a result, both insurance buyers and insurance providers can be as stupid and wasteful as they like and be assured that they get bailed out. And the people who actually are prudent with their insurance choices and health care get stuck with the bill.

I used to be on a high deductible plan and be quite prudent about my health care spending; not anymore. Now I tell the doctor to do everything and anything he can. Why not? There is no incentive for me to save money anymore.

BTW, Obama sucks at getting his programs through Congress.

That's because he is thoroughly incompetent both in terms of negotiating and as an administrator.

I regard it as a flawed step forward. I believe this will help millions of Americans, and once we get used to universal coverage we might be able to change it for the better.

It's a "step forward" only if you think that bankrupting and totally wrecking the current system will make people want single payer and you think that's a good thing. Why you think that's a good thing is, however, mystifying.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 6 months ago | (#47137461)

She was told 'no' because she went through a carefully thought out and vetted process designed to deal with a very limited supply of a very important item (an organ). The parents decided to escalate the issue and brought the courts in - which was completely inappropriate (if understandable). This was a 'think of the cute little child' moment and had nothing to do with 'death panels' or rationing.

So, unwrap your panties. Life is more complex than cleaning out the bong.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#47137537)

Life is more complex than cleaning out the bong.

have you SEEN some of these bongs today??? not exactly simple cleaning ;)

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

EvanED (569694) | about 6 months ago | (#47137619)

She was told 'no' because she went through a carefully thought out and vetted process designed to deal with a very limited supply of a very important item (an organ). The parents decided to escalate the issue and brought the courts in - which was completely inappropriate (if understandable). This was a 'think of the cute little child' moment and had nothing to do with 'death panels' or rationing.

Exactly. The courts got involved, and saved the girl's life. But what about the person who they thus killed who otherwise was going to get that organ? (Or maybe person #4 on the list, who was going to get the organ that #3 wound up getting because person #2 wound up getting the organ that #3 was going to get because #1 got the organ that #2 was gonna get because the girl got the organ that #1 was gonna get.)

If your example is meant to be illustrating how the courts were correcting the "death panels" taht set the guidelines by which she was denied... how does that not make the courts just the new death panels?

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about 6 months ago | (#47138495)

Exactly. The courts got involved, and saved the girl's life

The courts didn't save any life, and in fact, they didn't even get involved. Cigna eventually reversed their decision, but the girl died before the transplant could be performed, anyway. Amazing how an entire debate can go on here without anyone knowing the actual facts of the example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

bgalbrecht (920100) | about 6 months ago | (#47143097)

The other posters are referring to 11 year old Sarah Murnaghan, who needed a lung transplant and, by the transplant registry rules was at the bottom of the list because she was under 12 and was on the pediatric list instead. After winning the court case, she had two double lung transplants because the first set of lungs failed within 24 hours. She's still alive, nearly a year after the transplants.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 6 months ago | (#47138159)

remember the little girl who needed an organ transplant? she was told no and they actually had to bring it to court to save this girls life

.... by jumping her in line for a poorly suited transplant, possibly costing another person their life.

That had to be one of the biggest medical travesties this year.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138413)

How you have not yet accidentally killed yourself with a can opener is beyond me.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about 6 months ago | (#47138477)

remember the little girl who needed an organ transplant? she was told no and they actually had to bring it to court to save this girls life

Actually, that girl died. They said the chance of survival was low, and they were right.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137297)

I demand to pay twice as much as Canadians do and get worse healthcare!

--
BMO

Honestly Canada's health care reputation is based on its performance in the 80's and early 90's its pretty shit right now especially if your not in Ontario

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 6 months ago | (#47137423)

Honestly Canada's health care reputation is based on its performance in the 80's and early 90's its pretty shit right now especially if your not in Ontario

Evidence? (preferably not from Fox news).

Don't worry though, health care costs in the US have gone up way faster that inflation, with no appreciable improvement in outcomes but a higher likelihood of bankruptcy.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137317)

You are everything that is wrong in this world.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 6 months ago | (#47140715)

Remember the ol' "OH NOES DEATH PANELS" panic

You mean the people who predicted that if we allowed the people who thought the VA was the perfect model for healthcare to control everyone's healthcare we would end up with a system where bureaucrats who did not care if a specific person lived or died would decide if you lived or died? Are you trying to say that your healthcare through the United Health HMO was worse than what the VA was providing?

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#47137215)

I'd rather this be in the public sphere where hopefully the agency has my interests at heart, rather than some private, for profit corporation.

key word there is hopefully. I dont have any hope in our current government to do the right thing

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 6 months ago | (#47137435)

I dont have any hope in our current government to do the right thing

I don't have much hope either, but I am certain that the financial industry will do everything in its power to fuck me up the ass. I'll take ineffectual any day of the week.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (3, Informative)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#47137455)

true, my only issue with that is I can avoid doing business with *insert private company here*, I have yet to figure out a way to legally avoid doing business with the feds

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | about 6 months ago | (#47138185)

100% under-rated.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

airdweller (1816958) | about 6 months ago | (#47158223)

"my only issue with that is I can avoid doing business with *insert private company here*,"
Try avoiding business with Experian, Equifax, TransUnion or Innovis.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#47137485)

well you know for a fact, and hove no control over, the private companies will sell and manipulate your data.

The government gives you the opportunity to find out what they are doing.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#47137527)

The government gives you the opportunity to find out what they are doing.

i wish this were true but if it were wouldnt have the need for wikileaks and edward snowden. As I said to the other poster though, I can chose to do business with private company ABC, i dont get to choose if i do business with the federal government. Ill take the option of choice over force anytime

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (5, Insightful)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about 6 months ago | (#47137271)

hate to burst your utopian-bubble, but the last time i checked, in world history Government has caused, roughly, about a bazillion times more pain and sufferings than any corporation could ever even begin to conceive of.

i can't get my head around this "trust the government" meme..."government" is nothing but a group of busybody people (yes the same type of people who work in corporations, and at taco bells, and everywhere else btw) who crave power and use personality and politics, NOT merit or compassion, to secure their base and influence and really care much less about your personal miseries and stresses then the typical corporate executive does.

its bad business to anger and kill your customers, governments rarely care about that sort of stuff, esp. they get in the way of maintaining their power over you and your life.

at least corporations have to compete for your blessings, and can pretty easily be displaced.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (2, Informative)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 6 months ago | (#47137497)

hate to burst your utopian-bubble, but the last time i checked, in world history Government has caused, roughly, about a bazillion times more pain and sufferings than any corporation could ever even begin to conceive of

So now you think you live in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia? Now who has delusions.

i can't get my head around this "trust the government" meme

Neither could the people who wrote the Constitution, which is why we're supposed to have freedom of the press and elections. It's far from perfect, and thanks to corporate influence it's getting worse, but I'm still not learning the Horst Wessel Song or the Internationale.

BTW, you do know that one of the main complaints of the people who wrote that Constitution was the way the British government was influenced by the East India Company, right? Look up the actual causes of the Boston Tea Party. Oh, and check how that company ruled much of India for 130 years for its profit.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137749)

You sound just like the Jews who chose not to flee Germany prior to 1938. It's all just a bunch of rhetoric, they said. No reason to be afraid, they said. Yeah. Nazi Germany really didn't exist as a cohesive unit, up until a point--and then unholy hell broke out. Ol' Adolf was legitimately elected, and used the liberalized rights guaranteed by the Weimar constitution to get himself there. Likewise, prior to 1922, nobody lived in in a Soviet transitional state. That's the point about keeping an eye on the past as you're racing toward the future, because we don't want to live in times like those again, well, at least some of us don't.

Some people are saying that we might be at one of those critical junctions in time. With all of the capability the government has to track us, to listen to us, to automatically filter, classify and record our private correspondence, to have total information awareness on any of our financials; it's hard to deny, they may well be right. For if the worm did turn sometime in the near future, it'll be bad news.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about 6 months ago | (#47139391)

Adolf was legitimately elected

That's entirely untrue. Adolf was appointed by President Hindenburg to a very weak post called Chancellor, where he could create legislation, but it had to be passed by a majority in parliament. After parliament, then recently filled with Nazi members via an election, voted to pass the Enabling Act (which allowed the Chancellor to create legislation without a vote in Parliament), Hindenburg signed it, which gave Hitler more power. When Hindenburg died, using the power given to him by the Enabling Act, Hitler abolished the presidency and gave the powers of the president to himself. In sum, Hitler never won an election - he got to be the head of Nazi Germany by dismantling the system from within.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47146161)

The first concentration camp was Dachau, established on March 20, 1933 in the southern German town of the same name (10 miles northwest of Munich).

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47139309)

hate to burst your utopian-bubble, but the last time i checked, in world history Government has caused, roughly, about a bazillion times more pain and sufferings than any corporation could ever even begin to conceive of

So now you think you live in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia?

FUCKING. READ. US. FUCKING. HISTORY.

This has been your free tip(tm) for the day.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

airdweller (1816958) | about 6 months ago | (#47158241)

FUCKING. TAKE. YOUR. MEDS.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 6 months ago | (#47137709)

The best thing about private organizations is they can be regulated by the government. You need to have the regulating body be a separate body from the group being regulated. This is why our national budget follows broken accounting rules that would get a CEO thrown into prison. CEOs are regulated by an external body, but government isn't (unless you count citizens, who should but don't pay attention).

It is true regulating bodies can be taken over by industry, but that's still an extra barrier compared to regulating bodies being the thing they try to regulate.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 6 months ago | (#47138791)

The best thing about private organizations is that there is likely to be more than one of them. There may be meaningful choice in the market and you may get to choose the better option. You might be able to PAY for a better option.

If it's all government then you're screwed if you don't like it. You have no other alternative and bribery really isn't a good option.

Right now we have a great example of how you don't want to be stuck with the the government as the only option: the VA.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137719)

well IBM did stream line their killing to levels otherwise achievable

so you could argue that IBM caused more pain and suffering than the Nazi government was capable of alone.

America! can always count on them to be around to reap the profits of suffering.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138633)

"hate to burst your utopian-bubble, but the last time i checked, in world history Government has caused, roughly, about a bazillion times more pain and sufferings than any corporation could ever even begin to conceive of."

Don't worry, they're working on fixing that.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47140937)

Bhopal, motherfucker. Bhopal. United Fruit Company. Dow. I could go on and on. Do you know what a negative fucking externality is? Do you presume all markets are free?

You don't know shit.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

surd1618 (1878068) | about 6 months ago | (#47141353)

and can pretty easily be displaced

Except they're all turning into cartels. Classic example: Ma Bell was all busted up, and step by step all the baby Bells got permission to unite with their little neighbors, and now we have a few corporations that have divided the phone service into market segments, all of which have Bell heritage. Some markets, like say grocery stores and many emerging products, definitely still compete, but wherever there's big money, increasingly there is collusion and shell-game competition. Cheers for Elon Musk, though.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (2)

x0ra (1249540) | about 6 months ago | (#47137277)

Because the US Federal Governement has better transparency and accountability ? Obama wanted to be the most transparent gv, but ended up denying *way* more FOI request than any preceding government...

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (3, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 6 months ago | (#47137507)

And prosecuting way more whistleblowers than ALL other Administrations combined.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (0)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 6 months ago | (#47138299)

Im no Obama fan, but AFAIK hes prosecuted one whistleblower.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137511)

Because the US Federal Governement has better transparency and accountability ? Obama said he wanted to be the most transparent gv, but ended up denying *way* more FOI request than any preceding government...

FTFY

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 6 months ago | (#47137685)

I'd rather this be in the public sphere where hopefully the agency has my interests at heart,

They don't.

"agency has my interests at heart" (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 6 months ago | (#47138277)

Um, i would rather have it with the commercial entities, they want to make sure they can make more money from me in the future, the government just wants to take it all and redistribute.

You''ve already suffered a logic failure (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138287)

NOBODY authorized those private credit firms to have the personal and private information of individual Americans.

The fact that several companies have built financial empires buying, selling, trading, and holding information they have no right to have in the first place does not make it legitimate. There are people who kill for money and people who steal money; THEIR "profitability" does not make their actions legitimate. The fact that these companies make billions per year and are now integral to the economy does not legitimize their activities, nor does it make the problem "unfixable", nor does it mean that government should follow them down this illegitimate rabbit hole.

These firms ought to be banned by law from having ANY personal information on any person who has not entered into an agreement with them. Want a "credit rating"? Fine. Sign a contract with Expirian or TRW or whomever authorizing it - and as a side benefit they then know who you are and how to contact you and then there's no ability for "identity theft" to exist (ANY business could submit data on a customer to the credit checker saying "is this person's data correct?" and get back a "yes" or a "no - call the police" answer instantly)

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (2)

BitterOak (537666) | about 6 months ago | (#47138303)

As opposed to the private credit rating agencies that have all your personal credit information with zero transparency and accountability?

I'd rather this be in the public sphere where hopefully the agency has my interests at heart, rather than some private, for profit corporation.

From the article:

As many as 227 million Americans may be compelled to disclose intimate details of their families and financial lives

The key difference is that private credit rating agencies don't have the legal authority to compel you to provide them with any information. They might use some underhanded means to obtain some of that information, but they can't send you to prison for not telling them what they want to know. The government, however, does have that power. It is the powers of compulsion, not the database itself, which has me worried.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47139579)

By this logic, a mugger is less scary than a police officer, because a police officer has legal authority to arrest you. News flash: people do not need legal authority to fuck you over.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

BitterOak (537666) | about 6 months ago | (#47139667)

By this logic, a mugger is less scary than a police officer, because a police officer has legal authority to arrest you. News flash: people do not need legal authority to fuck you over.

Well, if private credit agencies had a tendency to show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records, then I'd say you had a good point.

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 6 months ago | (#47140117)

By this logic, a mugger is less scary than a police officer, because a police officer has legal authority to arrest you. News flash: people do not need legal authority to fuck you over.

Well, if private credit agencies had a tendency to show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records, then I'd say you had a good point.

Wait, you're saying government "has" a "tendency" to "show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records?"

Paranoid hyperbole much?

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (1)

BitterOak (537666) | about 6 months ago | (#47144019)

By this logic, a mugger is less scary than a police officer, because a police officer has legal authority to arrest you. News flash: people do not need legal authority to fuck you over.

Well, if private credit agencies had a tendency to show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records, then I'd say you had a good point.

Wait, you're saying government "has" a "tendency" to "show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records?"

Paranoid hyperbole much?

Obviously, I was referring to the mugger. Did you even read what I was responding to?

Re:Credit rating databases aren't new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47139399)

I'd rather this be in the public sphere where hopefully the agency has my interests at heart, rather than some private, for profit corporation.

This is like fucking for abstinence.

As opposed to the private credit rating agencies that have all your personal credit information with zero transparency and accountability?

Yes, but the baby is already out, and you want another one?

ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE?

Allow me, to present some staggering graphs of the situation.

We "freedom loving free marketer loving cousins in the south" are well-known for our precision,
our love of minute subtleties, the dashing, dazzling insights that only careful, decades-long
experience and observation can uncover. Behold! A rare glimpse into the "free market":


LEGEND:
-----} massive, infected government wang
{---- monstrous, disease-riddled corporate cock
-} healthy relationship
{- consensual market

This, is good:

Govern {----- ration
ment -----} Corpo

happy citizen 1 -} hc2

                hc3 -} hc4 hc5 -} hc6 -} hc7

hc8 -} hc9 {- hc10

                -} lonely, but hc11

hc 12 -} {- hc 13
hc 14 -} {- hc15

hc16 -} hc17, & hc17's sister, hc18

You will see, the Plagueodragon Rex and titanic cystclops are too busy sucking each other off to bother anyone else.

The good townsfolk are left alone to love each other.

This is bad, just mixing AIDS w/ chlamydia:
Corporation -----} Government ----} citizens of the land, ankles above their heads

This is bad too, leprosy with a side order of gonorrhea:
Government -----} Corporation ----} citizens of the land, slobbering ferociously

And your suggestion:

Corporation --------} Thousands upon thousands of upstanding, law-abiding
Government -------} citizens, bent over

is just cancer and smallpox for all.

I thank you for your time. I think you will find the mathematics behind my data are best ignored at your own peril.

huh? (1)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about 6 months ago | (#47137051)

hmmm...so why would us Americans have to give to the feds the very number they assigned to us?

sheesh...no wonder the healthcare website cost is at over $1bil and climbing.

Re:huh? (1)

PPH (736903) | about 6 months ago | (#47137101)

As a demonstration of your willingness to comply.

Re:huh? (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 6 months ago | (#47137285)

+1 !

Re:huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47139633)

Yeah, and why does the IRS need to know my SSN every year? Don't they have that on file? And why do I need to submit my W2's? Don't they have those on file too? Why should I get off my lazy ass and do anything when I can make some government worker waste taxpayer dollars to do it for me?

Re:huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137137)

suck my dick with your butt

Re:huh? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#47137499)

in a world where a game can cost 100+ million to make, getting close to a billion for a federal level health care system isn't really that bad.

Re:huh? (1)

h2oboi89 (2881783) | about 6 months ago | (#47142137)

The government uses the SSN like your teachers in school used your name at the top of the paper, to uniquely identify you. It will be one more section of the form you fill out when you put your information into this system.

Mortgages are public records (5, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | about 6 months ago | (#47137053)

Mortgages are public records. State and local governments already have all that data. Anyone can look it up. Data companies have already collected it for most parts of the US and use it for marketing.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is only going to have a 1 in 20 sample of the data. That's enough to look for improper activity by lenders. There's a lot of funny stuff going on in the foreclosure area, but nobody has been analysing that as a "big data" problem.

Re:Mortgages are public records (2, Informative)

Mitreya (579078) | about 6 months ago | (#47137115)

Mortgages are public records. State and local governments already have all that data. Anyone can look it up.

I don't think mortgages are public record. Sales of houses and their prices are public record, but that is a far cry from knowing your actual mortgage (maybe you paid cash?)

There's a lot of funny stuff going on in the foreclosure area, but nobody has been analysing that as a "big data" problem.

Yes, "big data in a cloud with web 2.0" is the solution. It is reasonably known what "funny stuff" goes on, but instead of cracking down on these practices, we are going to do reports. Reports are needed to identify the problem when it is a mystery.

Re:Mortgages are public records (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137123)

It would depend on the state, but yes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_(real_estate)

You might find a promissory note is legal in your state, but maybe not.

Re:Mortgages are public records (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137153)

Yes, "big data in a cloud with web 2.0" is the solution. It is reasonably known what "funny stuff" goes on, but instead of cracking down on these practices, we are going to do reports. Reports are needed to identify the problem when it is a mystery.

With sufficiently obtuse reports, you can both simultaneously say it is accomplishing something by the one or two cases it documents by shear chance, while also stating that the problem is "cleaned up", because no other instances can be shown, and "look, we have data!" to prove it.

Re:Mortgages are public records (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137333)

Mortgages are public records. State and local governments already have all that data. Anyone can look it up.

I don't think mortgages are public record. Sales of houses and their prices are public record, but that is a far cry from knowing your actual mortgage (maybe you paid cash?)

In Iowa, mortgages are certainly a matter of public record. When preparing to bid on a house, I read through the owners' mortgage and their subsequent refinance. I could very closely estimate how much equity they had in their house by the date of the refinance, the interest rate, the term, etc. Then I could make a bid that would leave them with zero profit after the fees. They could walk away clean. I knew bidding lower would make them take a loss, and I anticipated they would refuse to do that.

Of course, I paid cash.

I hate that all this information is public record. See what happens? But if the government demands the data by law, then damn right I'm going to use it.

Re:Mortgages are public records (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 6 months ago | (#47137453)

Any real estate that has a mortgage will have a lien on the title. That lien will be recorded along with the title at a public records office so the owner cannot sell the property without clearing the lien.

The details of what gets recorded in the lien are a matter of state law, but certainly there will be some description that the lien is in fact a mortgage.

Re:Mortgages are public records (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 6 months ago | (#47139137)

The details of what gets recorded in the lien are a matter of state law, but certainly there will be some description that the lien is in fact a mortgage.

Every few years there's a mini-scandal as [State] realizes that the Social Security numbers weren't (properly) redacted from the public loan documents.

The increasing trend towards putting public records online has accelerated the pace of these "scandals."

Re:Mortgages are public records (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47144593)

Shit. In my county, the online record system has digitally scanned copies of the signatures on the documents as well.

Identity theft paradise.

Re:Mortgages are public records (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 6 months ago | (#47146739)

It really isn't that inconvenient to go to your local hall of records. Online or not it's still public information.

Face it there is really nothing stopping a smart person from wreaking havoc.

Re:Mortgages are public records (1)

rssrss (686344) | about 6 months ago | (#47138837)

Mortgages must be recorded in the county land records. The mortgage instrument must set forth the principal amount of debt secured by the mortgage. The amount so stated limits the amount the lender may recieve in the event of a foreclosure sale, although the amount may be increased by interest and expenses.

Re:Mortgages are public records (4, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | about 6 months ago | (#47137195)

Mortgages are public records.

Most are. Some are not.

Some (wealthy) people conduct property transactions partially or entirely as private contracts. Back when I was in a business involving engineering in public right-of-ways, many county property records just described transactions as "for the price of $20 and other valuable considerations". Often for multi-million dollar waterfront lots. And then there's property which is held by a corporation, where the records of transfer (unregistered securities not available to the general public) will never be a matter of public record.

But these sorts of transactions are beyond the authority of the FHFA and CFPB. And that is by the design of the parties involved. So, in one sense, who cares? The common folk (who need consumer protection) are already a matter of record and the rich don't want/don't need the government meddling in their affairs.

Problems arise when parties at the margins of the public/private transaction decision look at this new body of law and push their decision over to the private side. I don't care about the mortgage fraud issue so much. But there is already a massive amount of property value that is 'off the books' and not contributing to local tax bases. And this sort of nonsense will just make it worse.

Re:Mortgages are public records (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 6 months ago | (#47137373)

Lots of land doesn't have a mortgage on it. In fact my home doesn't have a mortgage. I think I saw a statistic that some 30% of US homes are free of mortgages.

However that has nothing to do with a title history for a piece of land. That title is on file at a government office somewhere, assuring that the history of ownership is recorded, and there is a record of the taxes on the land. If the taxes don't get paid the government will take title and generally sell it to recover taxes owed.

Re:Mortgages are public records (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#47137515)

that interesting I work for an agency that does those exact kind of purchases and every nickle it public record.
IT's also routinely given to universities and the press.

Re:Mortgages are public records (2)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 6 months ago | (#47137217)

Your credit rating, payment history, and other details; however, are NOT public record. The government wants that information now so it can "help" people.

"Oh hey, we notice you haven't paid your mortgage in three months. We'll just send your tax refund to the bank to help you stay in your house."

That's what this is all about - helping government help its corporate overlords.

Re:Mortgages are public records (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#47137523)

", are NOT public record"
Yes they are.
If you want to buy something from me using credit, I can get ALL that information. It's not even expensive.

Re:Mortgages are public records (2)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 6 months ago | (#47137743)

", are NOT public record"
Yes they are.
If you want to buy something from me using credit, I can get ALL that information. It's not even expensive.

You are saying if I authorize you to obtain a copy of my credit report, and give you my SSN, data of birth, name and address, you can obtain a copy, and this means it is public record. You and I have very different definition of public record.

Re:Mortgages are public records (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#47140347)

You are saying if I authorize you to obtain a copy of my credit report, and give you my SSN, data of birth, name and address, you can obtain a copy, and this means it is public record. You and I have very different definition of public record.

That's not actually what he's saying. And even he is understating the case. If someone has a "legitimate" business interest in your financial information, then they can attempt to find you through public databases with any known piece of information. The government collects the data, then it sells access to it to a handful of corporations which resell it to others. Anyone with a business license can buy an account and use it to make queries. The queries are only investigated under subpoena, you're free to query the db in any way you want once you have an account. The databases include records of past residences, including those which you didn't own. They include escrow, mortgages, and professional certifications. At least 1 in 3 people can typically be located from some random piece of old information, perhaps with some false positives. The credit industry is based on this ability. They don't actually need an SSN to find you, though that usually makes things easier. And this is what any asshole with a business license and a credit card can find out, not law enforcement...

Re:Mortgages are public records (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 6 months ago | (#47138345)

That is not even close to what "public record" means.

Re:Mortgages are public records (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138489)

That's like saying since you can do a freedom of information request on yourself that you fbi file is public record...

Mortgages are public records (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137645)

Mortgages are public records

Dead wrong. The specifics vary by state but in none of them are all mortgage details public.

Is pro-Obama "spin" your full-time job? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138519)

First: mortages are a matter of state (not federal) law. While I know you left-wingers do not "get" the difference and find it "inconvenient" to your desires, there is a REAL difference. Not all mortgages are a matter of public record. Even those that ARE a a matter of STATE interest are still NOT the business of the Federal Government.

Second, blindly accepting the government pledge that this will only be a "sample" is every bit as STUPID and GULLIBLE as accepting the initial government claim that the NSA was only skimming "meta data" on cell phone calls between people inside the US and terrorists outside the US. At this point, you'd have to be a moron, an Obamabot, or a paid Obama shill to fall for that.

Third, the "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau" is a left-wing scam. It was concieved by the tag-team of Elizabeth Warren and Cass Sunstein (who are both advocates of “behavioral economics”) as a way to have the federal government "nudge" the public into choosing to do the things government want them to do. The basic idea was to create a monster agency to monitor the private financial activities of the masses, study them to find patterns and the easiest "choke points" where government pressure could be applied, then enable the rest of the government to steer the public by pressing on those choke points. Have you not noticed the recent pressure the Obama admin is putting on banks over accounts belonging to porn stars and gun dealers????? The CFPB has decided that certain commercial activities can more-readily (and "quietly") be controlled by squeezing the banks with extra regulations if they host bank accounts for "undesireable" businesses - this is just an early test.

As for your claim that there's a "lot of funny stuff" going on in foreclosures - that's a farce and a false justification. The biggest pile of "funny stuff" in foreclosures IN HUMAN HISTORY took place as part of the 2008 meltdown and both the establishment Republicans and the establishment Democrats fell all over themselves scrambling for massive piles of cash to bail-out their banker buddies. Any violation of the privacy of all Americans now, done supposedly over banking/mortgage activity, is a fraud as long as it is not PRECEEDED by investigations, prosecutions and BILLION DOLLAR "claw-backs" aimed at Wall St bankers and their yachts and mansions and penthouse apartments, and luxury cars and private jets...

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Where in there do you see permission for a federal agency to grab all the financial records for all of my credit card purchases???????

You Obamabots will justify ANY government abuse and intrusion if it advances your totalitarian goals... I get it... your boss promised to "fundamentally transform" the United States and you thought he was going to create heaven-on-Earth... but like every other socialist in human history who promises nirvana he cannot actually deliver the "good parts" and he is locking-in all the "bad parts" which will be available for future abuse. Also, unlike the other socialists in history, he is trying this crap in a country with a founding document that contradicts him and many of whose citizens are keenly aware of it.

Oh yeah baby... (1)

hackus (159037) | about 6 months ago | (#47137067)

can't wait to crack into that puppy!!!

Mmm...now...lemme see....going to have to make a rather large shopping list to buy some of those absolute nessecities....maybe even start a state owned business...I mean, a private business.(Woops, nothing to see here...move along....move along.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]

let's just kill everyone in charge, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137071)

burn down the cities, and go live in the woods. problem solved.

Impeach Bush!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137125)

Why can't we vote Bush out!? If we only had a Democrat in the White House, this kind of thing wouldn't be happening!

are the ideologues out again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137149)

Anyone who objects to this is a ideologue, there for not scientific.

Once more (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 6 months ago | (#47137157)

I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.

Why don't people like government? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137183)

Because they promise one thing, delivered another and morph it into something it should never have been.

No mortgage! (1)

Roblimo (357) | about 6 months ago | (#47137193)

My place may be tiny (single-wide trailer on a .1 acre lot) but I own it free and clear. No mortgage. So they can't check my mortgage info. Phht.

Re:No mortgage! (2)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 6 months ago | (#47137255)

Congratulations, you're pre-approved for a mortgage at a special low rate!!!

Re:No mortgage! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137397)

I got his personal details you mind if I apply for a mortgage in his name??

You are livin right, kudos (1)

Marrow (195242) | about 6 months ago | (#47137257)

Trailer is nice because its disposable. Now you can save up for one of those nifty shot-crete dome homes. Low maintenance and near indestructible.

WOW, Be the psychic of them all (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137251)

Just last night at dinner, I held a rant about the "racial unfairness" of credit scores. And how the federal government "needs" to shut down all the run by "rich old white men" "private for profit" credit rating companies and start it's own that will be mandated as the only source of credit scores in the USA. It could then use this agency to "empower" minorities to receive "fair" credit scores aka averaged to be the same as caucasian and asian americans. Aka, if the average credit score of whitish to yellowish people is 650, then a weighted bias must be given to black and hispanic people separately to ensure they have the same average credit score along with all other underprivileged minorities. Thus making it possible for more of them to qualify for affordable credit. Otherwise, you are denying them opportunity which is how credit scores are basicly modern slavery. I didn't want to go there by someone has to. One could also move simply away from these system of punishing people of color for having been tricked into taking on too much debt by the whiteman by measure nontraditional factors when calculating the credit score. More of a biographical assessment similar to what the FAA is now using to test for New hires for air traffic control.

Of course, What would probably happen is the free market would find a solution. Ether some loophole or work around; or Some combination of it being almost impossible to get an unsecured loan or everyone paying more for the people who were previously known bad credit risks.

Re:WOW, Be the psychic of them all (1)

Greg666NYC (3665779) | about 6 months ago | (#47137551)

Not gonna happen. Not in USA. Power over people is the most valuable good here. And not only "rich old white men" pull the strings. Oligarchs, whether from USA ,Russia or China don't care about borders or "patriotism" 140mln slaves from Russia or 290mln slaves from USA makes absolutely difference to them. As long they can use, rinse and throw them away.

Re:WOW, Be the psychic of them all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137663)

Or you could, you know, just pay your credit card bill on time, you fucking morons.

Re:WOW, Be the psychic of them all (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 6 months ago | (#47148093)

Fundamentally, a credit score exists to tell people who have a legitimate interest in knowing how likely you are to pay your debts, rent, whatever. It does not exist for social engineering, or to give everybody an equal chance to borrow money. Now, if you can show that adding race-related information to the credit score makes it a more valid predictor, that would be interesting.

More crooked garbage from our leaders. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137281)

I just cant keep wrapping my brain around the garbage they pull. The last 12 years will go down as the worst in US history. Crooked leaders, crooked leaders buddies. CEO's with incomes = to 300 times what their avg employee gets paid. I think they will no longer be able to keep the frog in the boiling water when using a flame thrower on it.

Re:More crooked garbage from our leaders. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137671)

Yes, they can. Occupy showed that the frog isn't jumping out for any reason whatsoever.

Re:More crooked garbage from our leaders. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137869)

Occupy was jumping out right up until Bloomberg's storm troopers rolled through in armored hummers and riot gear and put them back in the pot...

It's more than mortgages. (5, Interesting)

TigerPlish (174064) | about 6 months ago | (#47137287)

According to TFA:

Late car payment? It'll be recorded.

Late creditcard payment? Skipped a child support payment? Forgot to pay the water bill? It'll be recorded. Or so TFA says.

The database will also encompass a mortgage holderâ(TM)s entire credit history, including delinquent payments, late payments, minimum payments, high account balances and credit scores, according to the notice.

Really?! "high account balances?!"

The composition of your family? Feast your eyes on this little nugget FTFA:

The two agencies will also assemble âoehousehold demographic data,â including racial and ethnic data, gender, marital status, religion, education, employment history, military status, household composition, the number of wage earners and a familyâ(TM)s total wealth and assets.

Folks.. it *is* big brother. People are focusing on only the mortgage aspect, but if TFA is to be believed, it's a financial dragnet.

What the fuck are they looking for? People spending large sums on strange things?

It won't be for bureaucratic purposes. This will get tied in with law enforcement somehow. That's just my gut feeling, folks... but I do really think LEOs will want in on this.

"Mr Smith, we'd like to have a word with you.. every two weeks you withdraw $100 cash, then as you can see in these pictures, the city's automated license plate readers catch you visiting the address of a known marijuana dealer every time you make that withdrawal. Please step into the van, sir."

It's coming. Maybe not for a bag of sweet leaf, but surely for other things.

2001 was the year the US ended. We sold out to the Gov't and did so willingly; because Terrorism!, because Think of the Children, because War on Drugs! But mainly because Terrorism.

To hell with the federal government, might as well call it the Reich now.

Re:It's more than mortgages. (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 6 months ago | (#47137479)

The corps already have this and more. Why are you worried about government having it when corporations have vastly more power over your life anyway.

Re:It's more than mortgages. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138655)

Fuck off.

The "corps" can't put me in jail.

I can take action against the "corps" to restrict what they know about me, and have some success with that.

But once the government starts to do this we are all truly fucked.

Re:It's more than mortgages. (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#47137539)

The funny thing is how little you know about credit industry. every piece of information you list is available right now.

The ret of your rant I have heard since the 70's.

Re:It's more than mortgages. (3, Interesting)

TigerPlish (174064) | about 6 months ago | (#47137867)

One thing is to have financial information about individuals and their families scattered across multiple entities with defined boundaries and different search mechanisms -- it's another thing entirely to have the same financial info in one nice, convenient, easy-to-search, easy-to-abuse place.

A convenient central financial info database with intimate detail. What could *possibly* go wrong, right?

Now that I've had some time to chew on the news and my post, it occurs to me that this is also a profiling tool. Perhaps predictive uses could also be found for it?

The ranting will continue, by the way, by myself and others, until either we're dead, or a dramatic change of course happens to this country. And yes, I remember the ranting 30 years ago. Vividly. Along with images of Carter and Shah, Reagan and Ayatollah, Bush and Noriega, Bush II and Saddam, Obama and bin-Laden, brought to us by talking heads and punctuated by the nodding of a million muggles' heads.

No one. Fucking. Listened. Now we're playing the same songbook again, only the music is much more sinister, faster and more intense.

Wake the fuck up, people.

Re:It's more than mortgages. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138377)

Revolt NOW!!!

Re:It's more than mortgages. (1)

westlake (615356) | about 6 months ago | (#47138649)

One thing is to have financial information about individuals and their families scattered across multiple entities with defined boundaries and different search mechanisms -- it's another thing entirely to have the same financial info in one nice, convenient, easy-to-search, easy-to-abuse place.

How many private - corporate - entities have the resources needed to cross those boundaries and build a comprehensive, centralized, financial database of their own? How many of these databases already exist? How difficult are they to access?

Re:It's more than mortgages. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#47140353)

One thing is to have financial information about individuals and their families scattered across multiple entities with defined boundaries and different search mechanisms -- it's another thing entirely to have the same financial info in one nice, convenient, easy-to-search, easy-to-abuse place.

I guess you've never heard of MERLIN, have you? Like the GP comment said, this is old, old news.

No one. Fucking. Listened. Now we're playing the same songbook again, only the music is much more sinister, faster and more intense.

That's correct. It's just the same song, all the way down to centralizing the data. It's just a little more data. Most of this data, they have already.

Remember Total Information Awareness (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137627)

Despite being prohibited by Congress, the federal government is still assembling the components separately.

Re:It's more than mortgages. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138747)

Maybe not for a bag of sweet leaf

In the past every single power the government has given itself has gone to the front line on the war on drugs. So yeah, it will come for your bag of sweet leaf.

Cue 172 Republicans [govtrack.us] telling us how important states rights are, as long as the state doesn't try to allow people to smoke a bit of weed.

Re:It's more than mortgages. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47140033)

Not only are companies already collecting and selling all of that information and more, and actively refuse to make even court-ordered corrections, they're actively selling it to identity thieves.

Please, tell me just how the government could fuck me more than Experian already has been my entire life.

Re:It's more than mortgages. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47140375)

All very well said, apart from your last line - Hitler wasn't the evil one, the Jews were. You need to take The Hitler Test:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=83879

Everything you have been told about Hitler and Germany is a lie, and in fact the opposite is the truth. The same JEWS who destroyed Germany from within (and hence the German people wanted them expelled from Germany, just as they have been expelled from 109 other countries in the past 1,000 years) are now in control of your country - so don't liken the Jews who are doing this, to the Germans who finally fought back against these worthless, nation-wrecking parasites. Don't believe me, do some research for yourself.

ETHNIC Jews are 2% OF THE US POPULATION but control ALL KEY AREAS of US politics/media/banking

POLITICS (and pro-Israel support) Most Neo-cons are JEWs.United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Dianne Feinstein (JEW)
Deputy Secretary of State, Jim Steinberg (JEW)
Chief of Staff: Lew (Jew)
Supreme Court of the United States (9 total) Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, (3 JEWS) - can overturn laws and executive actions it deems unlawful or unconstitutional
Chief Performance Officer of the United States (responsible for federal budget and government reform), Jeffery Zients (JEW)
Senior advisor to the President, David Plouffe (JEW)
Speaker of House of Representatives – John Boehner (JEW)
Vice President – Joe Biden (JEW)

$$$ (American Financial CHAOS)Head of US Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, 1987-2006 (JEW)
Head of US Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke (JEW)
Janet Yellen, vice-chairman US Federal Reserve (JEW)
Head of International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde (JEW)
Head of World Bank, Robert B. Zoellick (JEW) Now appointed to be a Korean. Still a puppet for the jews.
Goldman Sachs head (Wall Street’s largest bank), Marcus Goldman (JEW)
National Economic Council Director, Gene Sperling (JEW).

MEDIA (Control the media - control people’s minds) – tip of the iceberg

Wikipedia boss - Jimmy Wales (JEW)
Google founders - Sergy Brin (JEW)
Facebook founder - Mark Zuckerberg (JEW)
Pornographic Talk show host – Howard Stern (JEW)
Disney owner – Michael Eisner (JEW)
Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish),
Pornography boss – Steve Hirsch (JEW) owns 80% US porn industry
MTV and Viacom owner – Sumner Redstone (JEW)
Anti-Christian apologists – Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens (JEWS)
Time Warner CEO – Gerald Levin (JEW)
L.A. Times Chairman - Sam Zell (JEW)
New York Times Chairman– Athur Sulzberger (JEW)
News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish),
Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish),
Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew),
Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish),
CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel),
MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish)
NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.

ACADEMIA
Sigmund Freud, psychoanalyst (JEW) – believed in sexual liberation, massive influence on corrupting western morals
Karl Marx, Communist (JEW) – Tens of millions died under communism in Russia and China
Melvin Lipman, President of American Humanist Organization, (largest American atheist organization, ANTI-CHRISTIAN)
Kenneth Guy Lieberthal (born September 9, 1943) is an American academic. He is the director of the John L. Thornton China Center and senior fellow in Foreign Policy and Global Economy and Development at the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit organization based in Washington D.C.
PLUS hundreds more left-wing social group founders and presidents

Compelled to disclose intimate details? (1)

SpankiMonki (3493987) | about 6 months ago | (#47137301)

You mean some federal SWAT-types are gonna bust down my door and force me at gunpoint to fill out a form? Answer intimate questions like "boxers or briefs?", "pink or stink?", or perhaps even (gasp) "paper ot plastic?" OH NOES!!!

Oh wait..."compelled" means that CoreLogic (the corporation that already has all my mortgage data) wants to sell the data to the CFPB. Mmmm...doesn't look like much in the way of compellin goin on. No SWAT Team for me, then.

Don't lie about the official name (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137343)

The official name is actually:

The Consumer Financial Fuck you in the asshole and steal every shred of privacy Bureau

Get your facts straight slashdot.

Re:Don't lie about the official name (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137661)

What privacy are they stealing. All that information is already availalbe to them. Furthermore, this is 1 in 20 aggregate financial data.

Crime Stopper (1)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 6 months ago | (#47137403)

Serious economic scrutiny would stop a lot of crime. Does anyone not know someone or some business that gets by while perpetually breaking the law? How many people could not hope to explain how they can pay and expensive mortgage, a car lease or other symptoms of a rich life all the while declaring the income of a pauper?

Re:Crime Stopper (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137621)

Maybe they're just strippers or do porn or something. It's legal and they make tons of cash but you don't want the whole world knowing about it.

Re:Crime Stopper (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 6 months ago | (#47140143)

The point was about them not paying their taxes. That is what is meant when the complaint is that they "declare the income of a pauper." The complaint is not that they tried to look poor to their neighbors. ;)

Re:Crime Stopper (1)

Mr.CRC (2330444) | about 6 months ago | (#47143065)

So in the interest of making sure everyone is paying their taxes, everyone must loose all of their privacy.

But it's Ok, because, the government is just going to use all those taxes to protect our freedom.

Yeah, I get it now.

This is TIA (remember that?) (2)

koan (80826) | about 6 months ago | (#47137557)

Look at what data CoreLogic has access to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]

CoreLogic, Inc. is a North American corporation providing financial, property and consumer information, analytics and business intelligence. Headquartered in Irvine, CA, the company analyzes information assets and data to provide clients with analytics and customized data services. Data sources include property and mortgage information, motor vehicle records, criminal background records and tax records.

Parts of Left and Right will be against this (4, Interesting)

davidwr (791652) | about 6 months ago | (#47137755)

I expect the Tea Party and libertarian-leaning Democrats to be up in arms about this.

I expect "business Republicans" and non-libertarian Democrats to see this as A Good Thing or at least a "neutral thing, but serving a good purpose" thing.

Let the sparks fly.

Re:Parts of Left and Right will be against this (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about 6 months ago | (#47148105)

I expect anybody who's been paying attention to regard this as a slightly different gloss on old news.

China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137825)

Is this so they can get a solid number when they sell America's home mortgages to China for some national debt relief?

From a Democrat President to You! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47137871)

How funny!
Slashdotters would howl and complain and threaten if this were proposed under Bush, or any other Republican president. Or if proposed from a Republican member of Congress. Now the POTUS Obama administration/regime proposes it and SlashDot is quiet as a church mouse.
How funny!
What a bunch of hypocrites--and you don't even realize that "your ox is being gored".

Settle Down... (4, Informative)

Hangtime (19526) | about 6 months ago | (#47137985)

Full Disclosure: Worked at one of the money center banks in both Small Business and Credit Cards for six years and a foreign bank with a US presence for 4.

What is this thing and do I need to get my foil hat?

The database they are constructing is being used to conduct performance reviews on originated mortgages. The database won't pick you up unless you start a mortgage. Once you originate the mortgage this database is being put into place in order to monitor your performance on that mortgage and your corresponding financial condition.

Why are they doing this?
To stop the next credit crisis as the system would allow surveillance over mortgages originated by banking institutions. Today, banking regulators have broad powers to request information out of banks including everything that's going to be held in this database (personal information about you, you bet - your bank is pulling regular credit reports on you and the regulator can check your progress when they come in for an exam. Building the database would shortcut that request and help get a better view as to how institutions are originating. No longer would regulators have to show up and start poking around at a bank, but they could monitor the health of the banks portfolio.

Who would be against this? This sounds like a way to crack down on banks.
It is a way to crack down on banks and ensure that what's being originated isn't crap. Think about it. We could have better monitored the health of the entire mortgage system by have having this database in place. Those who are against this are most likely those who have a vested interest in ensuring that the mortgage industry opaque to regulators. Those concerned about privacy should realize all of this data is being collected today, I can pull your credit report and cross it with data from CoreLogic and do roughly the same thing. Yes it is all in one place and with a government entity, but so long as its being used responsibility I don't have a problem with it as it would create an excellent tool for finding bad actors within the mortgage industry.

Re:Settle Down... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138717)

OK, that's the side of it that is reasonable and makes sense.

It all falls apart when you state this: "so long as its being used responsibility "

'A May 1 White House report on cybersecurity of federal databases also recently warned, "if unchecked, big data could be a tool that substantially expands government power over citizens.”'

Re:Settle Down... (2)

hey! (33014) | about 6 months ago | (#47141057)

Yeah, but doesn't *everything* fall apart with "so long as its being used responsibly". It's great that the military has the weapons it needs to do its job, "as long as they're being used responsibly."

That's not the way to think about this. The way to think about is to ask what can the government do do you that the couldn't do before?

Just like any private enterprise, the government can pull your credit report if it wants to. Now. And you'd better believe they do when they're investigating someone, or even looking for suspects. It's been happening for years now. The Washington DC sniper was a watershed case in the government procuring private sector data mining services to conduct a digital dragnet. Haven't you ever heard of a "fusion center"? The idea that *this* database gives the government any data about you it didn't have or couldn't easily get is silly.

So what can the government do with this database that it couldn't do before? It can find out whether a bank is writing bad mortgages and handing them off like a hot potato.

Re:Settle Down... (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 6 months ago | (#47138721)

The credit crisis didn't happen because people took out loans they couldn't afford. People will do that every chance they get. The bankers wanted the rules loosened up. The government did that and before long whole new financial commodity products were created using all these new "sub-primes" everywhere.

It's like knocking down part of a dam and then blaming the water for flooding the place.

Re:Settle Down... (1)

hey! (33014) | about 6 months ago | (#47141111)

And in a sense we were undone by our own economic theories, more specifically by the assumptions in those theories like perfect information. Those oh-so-useful but obviously untrue assumptions have some nasty corner cases.

When people discovered how to create financial instruments that eliminated risk, they thought they'd discovered how to do what was literally impossible. If I had to boil it all down to one sentence, here it is: All these financial institutions thought they were insulating themselves from risk, but when everyone started to do it they ended up coupling themselves to risks other institutions were taking. When everyone is underwriting everyone else's risks, those risks don't disappear, they end up chained together, as if everyone was standing in a circle and leaning on the guy to his right.

Re:Settle Down... (1)

strikethree (811449) | about 6 months ago | (#47142117)

The database they are constructing is being used to conduct performance reviews on originated mortgages. The database won't pick you up unless you start a mortgage. Once you originate the mortgage this database is being put into place in order to monitor your performance on that mortgage and your corresponding financial condition.

Why are they doing this?
To stop the next credit crisis as the system would allow surveillance over mortgages originated by banking institutions.

It does not matter what it is intended to be used for or why. The problem is what it could be used for. Does the FBI have access to it? Nope. Will they have access to it at some point in the future? You can bet your ass they will. How about other government agencies? Why not just start entering people into it as soon as they open a bank account instead of a mortgage? It will help prevent bad loans.

This monstrosity is a huge bag of evil. Kill it with fire! Now. ... and this post just got me onto another list. It shows that I am anti-American and only want to help the terrorists win. Jesus fucking H Christ.

Re:Settle Down... (1)

Mr.CRC (2330444) | about 6 months ago | (#47143081)

Yes, this is what is necessary to for government to solve a problem caused by government.

Or they could have just not bailed out the fucking banks, gotten rid of the GSEs, etc.!

NEWS FLASH!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138139)

Phone company compelling their customers to disclose their phone numbers for a new phone company database to track their customers phone usage!

Seriously! Was this article written by a "keep your government hands off my medicare" Tea Partier?!?

Hmmm... Let's think this through.,. Your Social Security Number was issued by... The U.S. Social Security Administration...

So unless that's some other Federal Government, (you guessed it) they already have your Social Security Number on file (duh!).

There is also another branch of the Federal Government that has some of your financial information on file... One of those pesky TLA things... What was it... Ah! Got it --- The I.R.S.; you know, those people who steal half of your paycheck and make you jump through hoops to get any of it back again.

==========
Guess what folks, your credit information is no more yours than your medical records are (no more than your phone records are)...

Private businesses (and government agencies) keep reams of information on each and every U.S. citizen - birth records, death records, criminal records, medical records, phone records, credit records, and on and on and on... (and all kindly searchable via the N.S.A.)

If you're not worried about your banks and credit card companies collecting your information, sending/selling it to third parties for processing, aggregation, indexing and advertising, what's one more government agency in the grand scheme of things?

LOLZ ROLZl on...

Re:NEWS FLASH!!! (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 6 months ago | (#47140155)

Darn you and your government conspiracy to spy on my taxable income! What does the darn IRS need my SSN for?!

Step 1 (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 6 months ago | (#47138271)

Make a list of who has what....

Oh boy! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138467)

The corporations and big business already has this information. I believe they're the ones you have to worry about. The government?, they can't find their ass with their fingers! What are you worried about?

Ripe for the Hacking (1)

WyldPhyr (3622571) | about 6 months ago | (#47138493)

Nice, this is just what we need. One data base with every American's personal information. As if identity theft wasn't easy enough.

Political database (1)

david999 (941503) | about 6 months ago | (#47138675)

This is a political database that the democrats are building.
They will track everything we do and use it against us if need be. Didn't vote for democrats? Then your healthcare records get lost and no medical care for you. Looking for a job, trying to get a loan? Sorry credit mysteriously ruined by identity theft.

If the republicans ever get back into power and they may never do so if they allow amnesty and those 20 million illegals bring 5 friends and relatives in then the republicans will be like they are in California.

I'm pretty sure that's illegal (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 6 months ago | (#47138699)

As part of the conditions of setting up the serial number of every person in the US, it was written into law that the government shall not use the magic number for anything other than social security accounting. Yes, I know they broke that law long, log ago and continue doing so. But it's still the law. (Did you know you can get a TAX ID number if you wish not to use your SSN when filing 'voluntary' taxes?)

Though it's far more poignant today than ever before, the government doesn't follow its own laws. Not the executive, not the legislative and not the judiciary. And even though there is, presently, jack-diddly we can really do about it, it's a good thing to keep that knowledge in discussion and in circulation. If people stop talking about it, it must not be happening right?

Re:I'm pretty sure that's illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47138965)

can I make a citizen's arrest?

Jews. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47140101)

Need I say any more?
Stinking, rat-faced Jew bankers and their 'fractional reserve' banking scam. In fact, it's worse than that - the rat-faced Jew bankers create money out of NOTHING when they lend it to you, and use your signature on the agreement to repay the amount as an asset. In other words, they are enslaving you every time you take out a loan, whether it be for a car, a new business, or a house.

http://www.positivemoney.org/

Can't wait untill all of this BS goes teats up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47141703)

Seriously, how does this enhance the lives of the average person. Why do we need this crap? How is it enhancing the human race?

Why should I be concerned? (1)

smutt (35184) | about 6 months ago | (#47142131)

Seriously, that's an honest question. Please tell me what I am supposed to be concerned about here.

The feds can have my SSN, they gave it to me after all. Also, I'm much more concerned with private agencies having access to my credit rating than the feds. And private agencies have been messing up/with my credit rating for decades. I don't really see what's new. So I'm asking, what's the problem here?

I'd be more bothered (1)

sabbede (2678435) | about 6 months ago | (#47145963)

if it weren't for the fact that the Federal Government assigns SS numbers in the first place.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?