|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 06 2017 10:47 a_flayer wrote:http://www.votedoggett.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/TX25.jpgWhat are the chances this will ever be solved, or that something like the Fair Representation Act would ever pass (I don't see it happening this time around), and how do our Republican friends in this thread feel about such a thing? Show nested quote +The bill would do three things: require all congressional districts to be drawn by independent redistricting commissions, establish multi-member districts, and have all districts use what’s known as ranked-choice voting (RCV).
The independent redistricting would take power away from partisan legislatures to draw congressional district lines, meaning that one party or another could no longer engage in gerrymandering.
Multi-member districts would mean that voters in each district would have the opportunity to elect multiple legislators to represent them instead of just one — which would mean that more people in the district would have the opportunity to elect someone closer to their own ideology rather than being stuck with one lawmaker who may or may not represent their viewpoint.
Finally, perhaps the most significant reform in the bill is RCV. Under this system, voters would be able to rank their preferences among various candidates and parties, rather than simply casting one vote for each office. If no candidate receives a majority of first-preference votes, then second-preferences are accounted for, and so on, until one candidate has a majority. Under RCV, you can vote your conscience without helping a candidate you loathe win instead.
RCV would make it so that there is no longer anything as a “wasted” vote — if your candidate ends up not being one of the top two candidates in the election, you can deliver your other votes to one of those instead. It would also force major party candidates to respect third-party voters and their ideas — after all, they would want their second-preference votes, and their third, and so on and so forth.
Lastly, it would eliminate the need for expensive runoff elections, as under this system the runoffs would be instantaneous. Source
The Supreme Court is going to be hearing a case on gerrymandering soon. That might be worth a listen.
|
On July 06 2017 10:47 a_flayer wrote:http://www.votedoggett.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/TX25.jpgWhat are the chances this will ever be solved, or that something like the Fair Representation Act would ever pass (I don't see it happening this time around), and how do our Republican friends in this thread feel about such a thing? Show nested quote +The bill would do three things: require all congressional districts to be drawn by independent redistricting commissions, establish multi-member districts, and have all districts use what’s known as ranked-choice voting (RCV).
The independent redistricting would take power away from partisan legislatures to draw congressional district lines, meaning that one party or another could no longer engage in gerrymandering.
Multi-member districts would mean that voters in each district would have the opportunity to elect multiple legislators to represent them instead of just one — which would mean that more people in the district would have the opportunity to elect someone closer to their own ideology rather than being stuck with one lawmaker who may or may not represent their viewpoint.
Finally, perhaps the most significant reform in the bill is RCV. Under this system, voters would be able to rank their preferences among various candidates and parties, rather than simply casting one vote for each office. If no candidate receives a majority of first-preference votes, then second-preferences are accounted for, and so on, until one candidate has a majority. Under RCV, you can vote your conscience without helping a candidate you loathe win instead.
RCV would make it so that there is no longer anything as a “wasted” vote — if your candidate ends up not being one of the top two candidates in the election, you can deliver your other votes to one of those instead. It would also force major party candidates to respect third-party voters and their ideas — after all, they would want their second-preference votes, and their third, and so on and so forth.
Lastly, it would eliminate the need for expensive runoff elections, as under this system the runoffs would be instantaneous. Source
I always assumed people were too scared of any voting scheme that's not "vote for your favorite"
|
On July 06 2017 10:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 08:43 a_flayer wrote:On July 06 2017 08:34 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Nothing new, is it? The US has been looting Iraq for years. It's just kind of funny. They were the ones who argued that they should have a religious exemption from providing birth control as part of health coverage. Apparently they skipped the 5th amendment though
Christian values prevents them from providing fair and equal Health coverage but not so to say... smuggling.
The Department of Justice on Wednesday filed to forfeit thousands of ancient Iraqi cuneiform tablets and clay bullae, or seals, illegally imported in 2010 by arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby.
Hobby Lobby agreed in December 2010 to purchase “over 5,500 Artifacts, comprised of cuneiform tablets and bricks, clay bullae and cylinder seals, for $1.6 million,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York announced in a release.
The artifacts “originated into the area of modern-day Iraq and were smuggled into the United States through the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel, contrary to federal law,” the office said.
According to the release, shipments of the artifacts lacked “the required customs entry documentation” and were labeled as tile “samples” and shipped to Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. “and two of Hobby Lobby’s corporate affiliates.”
Hobby Lobby “consented to the forfeiture of the artifacts” and “an additional sum of $3 million,” the office said, and agreed to make internal changes including personnel training, hiring outside counsel and submitting “quarterly reports to the government on any cultural property acquisitions for the next eighteen months.”
In a statement, Hobby Lobby president Steve Green said the company “should have exercised more oversight and carefully questioned how the acquisitions were handled.”
Hobby Lobby said it “was new to the world of acquiring these items, and did not fully appreciate the complexities of the acquisitions process.”
“This resulted in some regrettable mistakes,” the company said.
Green said that Hobby Lobby imported the artifacts as part of its “passion for the Bible.”
That passion reportedly led federal investigators to launch an investigation into the Green family that had been ongoing for four years in 2015 on suspicion of trying to import potentially illicit cultural artifacts from Iraq for their “Museum of the Bible.”
“Is it possible that we have some illicit [artifacts]? That’s possible,” Green told the Daily Beast at the time.
Source
|
On July 06 2017 03:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 03:45 Plansix wrote:
Edit: Logo - he is right. There are entire cities full of people that know nothing about finance. That isn’t their fault. We destroyed home economics courses long ago because our parents thought they knew better. I think the other thing that bears mentioning on the home ec courses is that the bar of required financial sophistication is far higher now than it used to be. Credit cards and other easy forms of credit completely changed the game. We're way past the simple balancing of a checkbook -- albeit the concept behind that particular skill is still the key to getting good credit and having as many financial tools as possible as your disposal.
Honestly, I get along just fine using exactly that: don't spend more than I have.
There are a few exceptions:
1) if I were to buy a house (would require I settle down, and not sure when/where that's going to be), I'd obviously need to borrow money. But I'd own a house, so that's ok.
2) necessary equipment for maintaining a living. If a car is needed to hold down a job, borrow money and buy a car. Obviously do some checks: if the job isn't worth the debt payments, don't do it. I have not encountered this situation.
3) Unavoidable expenses. Such as expensive medicine if you don't have affordable health care.
What I just don't understand is people going into debt to buy entirely unnecessary stuff. Buy a TV, a PlayStation and an iPhone on your credit card and wonder why you can't afford to pay it off? Hell, in Brazil they were offering restaurant meals to be paid in 10 installments... drove me nuts. If I actually went along with that, I also wouldn't be able to keep track of whether I was solvent or not. And I guess the only way of managing that is by being far more active in money management. I much prefer my way (even if it costs me some money in not taking advantage of delayed payments and investing now): if I have money in the bank, I know that it's mine to spend. There's monthly payments I need to pay (rent, telephone, etc) and I need to put money aside for savings. After that, what's left is to buy nice things. It's the age old checkbook take on household finance, and still works just fine. Just don't buy a kitchen mixer on 10 installments (instead, live without a mixer for 10 months and if in 10 months you still want it, you can now afford it... and if you can't, then you never could in the first place).
|
I took home ec growing up. I'm 30. I can balance a checkbook and manage my money just fine, by keeping current on the trends in the market place. It's not perfect and my credit is shot from helping family and taking credit when I couldn't afford it, but I understand the market. I did a fantasy stock exchange a long time ago, and made out like a bandit on smart investing and watching the market. You can teach yourself the skills you need in life. Some people don't have access to things like that. Simple tools to help you.
Now that I'm older and looking for a home to buy, my credit from 12 years ago still haunts me. It'll take me a long time to get that up to where it needs to be (5 years tops), but it's a hindrance now. I can't provide for myself, let alone a prospective family, with shit credit. And there is no way to get out from under it other than playing by their rules.
In America, credit is king. If you don't have it, you won't make it. I have a great network and connections in all sectors of every industry, but my credit won't allow me to take advantage of that, and that, my friends, is what is killing me.
EDIT: I don't mean this in an offense manner. But fuck anyone who says that they made it. No, your credit history made it. And you were lucky to get as far as you could with your socioeconomic background, whereas others, who are just as, if not more than, capable, are barely breathing. Your credit got you to your position. Nothing more. You have what others "covet" because it was bought in credit and smartly managed. (All my opinion. Take it as you will).
Edit2: I was taught in history in high school that my teacher, a 40 year old white male, could sign his name and get almost anything he wanted. Because of those facts. Sure, there are extenuating circumstances to preclude that, but the point stands. I could have the same credentials, and still be denied. Solely based on my socioeconomic background.
|
On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not? I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand?
That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president.
|
On July 06 2017 17:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I took home ec growing up. I'm 30. I can balance a checkbook and manage my money just fine, by keeping current on the trends in the market place. It's not perfect and my credit is shot from helping family and taking credit when I couldn't afford it, but I understand the market. I did a fantasy stock exchange a long time ago, and made out like a bandit on smart investing and watching the market. You can teach yourself the skills you need in life. Some people don't have access to things like that. Simple tools to help you.
Now that I'm older and looking for a home to buy, my credit from 12 years ago still haunts me. It'll take me a long time to get that up to where it needs to be (5 years tops), but it's a hindrance now. I can't provide for myself, let alone a prospective family, with shit credit. And there is no way to get out from under it other than playing by their rules.
In America, credit is king. If you don't have it, you won't make it. I have a great network and connections in all sectors of every industry, but my credit won't allow me to take advantage of that, and that, my friends, is what is killing me.
EDIT: I don't mean this in an offense manner. But fuck anyone who says that they made it. No, your credit history made it. And you were lucky to get as far as you could with your socioeconomic background, whereas others, who are just as, if not more than, capable, are barely breathing. Your credit got you to your position. Nothing more. You have what others "covet" because it was bought in credit and smartly managed. (All my opinion. Take it as you will).
Edit2: I was taught in history in high school that my teacher, a 40 year old white male, could sign his name and get almost anything he wanted. Because of those facts. Sure, there are extenuating circumstances to preclude that, but the point stands. I could have the same credentials, and still be denied. Solely based on my socioeconomic background.
Gotta say, that whole way debt is handled in the US sounds really weird to me as a european. Especially KwarKs descriptions are enlightening, because he sees the weirdness from the outside, and describes all the weird things that are "normal" in the US, that you would never see here.
Like a credit with a 90% rate. That would be completely illegal here. And the whole "looking at payment amount instead of total money you have to pay" thing makes my brain hurt.
Another question regarding this, because it sounds really weird to me: Do people really not realize that if you buy something on credit, it always costs more than buying it with money you have? So you taking debt to buy stuff "now" inevitably means that you will have less total stuff later. This is a very basic idea that i simply can't imagine people not understanding. Whenever people talk about teaching people to "manage their finances", i always imagine things like the retirement accounts and all the stuff that KwarK likes to talk about, not such basic ideas as "look how much money you have, and spend that. Don't go into debt unless you absolutely have to."
|
On July 06 2017 19:54 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 17:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I took home ec growing up. I'm 30. I can balance a checkbook and manage my money just fine, by keeping current on the trends in the market place. It's not perfect and my credit is shot from helping family and taking credit when I couldn't afford it, but I understand the market. I did a fantasy stock exchange a long time ago, and made out like a bandit on smart investing and watching the market. You can teach yourself the skills you need in life. Some people don't have access to things like that. Simple tools to help you.
Now that I'm older and looking for a home to buy, my credit from 12 years ago still haunts me. It'll take me a long time to get that up to where it needs to be (5 years tops), but it's a hindrance now. I can't provide for myself, let alone a prospective family, with shit credit. And there is no way to get out from under it other than playing by their rules.
In America, credit is king. If you don't have it, you won't make it. I have a great network and connections in all sectors of every industry, but my credit won't allow me to take advantage of that, and that, my friends, is what is killing me.
EDIT: I don't mean this in an offense manner. But fuck anyone who says that they made it. No, your credit history made it. And you were lucky to get as far as you could with your socioeconomic background, whereas others, who are just as, if not more than, capable, are barely breathing. Your credit got you to your position. Nothing more. You have what others "covet" because it was bought in credit and smartly managed. (All my opinion. Take it as you will).
Edit2: I was taught in history in high school that my teacher, a 40 year old white male, could sign his name and get almost anything he wanted. Because of those facts. Sure, there are extenuating circumstances to preclude that, but the point stands. I could have the same credentials, and still be denied. Solely based on my socioeconomic background. Gotta say, that whole way debt is handled in the US sounds really weird to me as a european. Especially KwarKs descriptions are enlightening, because he sees the weirdness from the outside, and describes all the weird things that are "normal" in the US, that you would never see here. Like a credit with a 90% rate. That would be completely illegal here. And the whole "looking at payment amount instead of total money you have to pay" thing makes my brain hurt. Another question regarding this, because it sounds really weird to me: Do people really not realize that if you buy something on credit, it always costs more than buying it with money you have? So you taking debt to buy stuff "now" inevitably means that you will have less total stuff later. This is a very basic idea that i simply can't imagine people not understanding. Whenever people talk about teaching people to "manage their finances", i always imagine things like the retirement accounts and all the stuff that KwarK likes to talk about, not such basic ideas as "look how much money you have, and spend that. Don't go into debt unless you absolutely have to."
For the millions upon millions of Americans who would benefit from better financial literacy in one way or another, there are a host of other concerns that seem more imminent and more worth their time. No matter the logic nor seeming necessity, very basic living strategies don't communicate well when those most in need of help have become convinced that someone or something else is more deserving of first-pass blame.
And let me tell you, if y'all think individuals are bad with money here, don't go digging too much into how municipal and local finance works. Individuals are dumb and do dumb things that can only affect so many people; school districts, municipalities, and county governments can and do wreak far more havoc with their lack of financial acumen.
|
I don't really understand how in the first place you can have millions of people not understanding that you shouldn't spend money that you do not have, otherwise you will end up with less than normal. That's just common sense. Surely the American school system teaches basic arithmetic? I am talking about +-x/ here. I mean the car dealership examples makes no sense to me as it'll just be cheaper to rent the car and replace with a newer model or just take out a real loan but without the shark.
|
Turning the acts of societal commerce that turn on an exchange of currency into math equations is a fun game of easy abstraction; however, it will not help you understand why the dude who gave up on math in middle school making poor purchasing choices refuses to engage with the reality of his decisions.
|
The acts of commerce and exhange of currency is no abstraction but hard reality. Are you seriously telling me that these people don't understand how to add or substract or multiply? No wonder he gave up on maths in middle school (whatever age that is). If that is true then there is nothing that can help this hypothetical dude. No amount of school can help him because he would be regarded as mentally handicapped.
|
I don't think it's that they can't do basic maths. I see it more of a cultural thing. Probably its both. I had no words for this the first time I was in the US. It was so unbelievably weird, and you more or less can't help but get caught up in this to some extent because of all the points in which it connects to the American way of doing things. It's just kind of in the way, and you can't get around it. For example, I don't have a credit card. People in America would just be confused at the concept. "How do you pay for things". With money that I already have: a debit card.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Commoner Americans have an aversion to math that would look bizarre to most from other countries, with the exception of the lucky few with good early math teachers. Even among otherwise smart people. For a lot of people that really does manifest itself in looking at finance as some arcane art not meant for the common peasant.
|
On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not? I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand? That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president.
Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side.
|
Generally in America, you should have a credit card to make purchases even if you have the money. Most credit cards have incentives like cash back, as well as fraud and identity theft protection. A financially illiterate person in America is probably more likely to not have a credit card and use only debit cards and cash.
|
On July 06 2017 22:31 chocorush wrote:
Generally in America, you should have a credit card to make purchases even if you have the money. Most credit cards have incentives like cash back, as well as fraud and identity theft protection. A financially illiterate person in America is probably more likely to not have a credit card and use only debit cards and cash.
It's hard to be financially illiterate and not have credit cards (and credit card debt) in America. You get dozens of applications in your mailbox every week or so since the day you turn 18. And the illiterate thinks free money with an affordable monthly payment.
|
What happens a lot these days are people getting a credit card, getting burned, and never getting a credit card again, or hear the horror stories of credit card debt and don't even bother. You're definitely more screwed if you're financially illiterate and have credit card debt, but by sheer percentage of the population I would say it goes to the non credit card owning population. If you don't have a credit card, it's either because you have no credit history or bad credit history, or because you just don't know the system.
|
On July 06 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not? I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand? That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side.
If you don't like the liberal media and their tactics, you need to understand that Trump is making that worse by leaps and bounds, by making the media more successful and sustainable as a business. America first rhetoric? You would never have tolerated NATO being diminished before you needed to excuse your vote for Trump. You've been conned by a snake oil salesmen into Trump Family First - see China and Saudi Arabia. As for the administrative state, how is Jared Kushner doing with that? And what is this bumbling fool enacting other than EOs that are statements of intent and laws that are marginal at best?
Dangermouse's point is that the bumbling fool is taking you backwards on your stated points, not helping. You trusted a bumbling fool to help you but he's gonna screw it all up.
|
On July 06 2017 23:02 chocorush wrote:
What happens a lot these days are people getting a credit card, getting burned, and never getting a credit card again, or hear the horror stories of credit card debt and don't even bother. You're definitely more screwed if you're financially illiterate and have credit card debt, but by sheer percentage of the population I would say it goes to the non credit card owning population. If you don't have a credit card, it's either because you have no credit history or bad credit history, or because you just don't know the system.
I’ve worked in bankruptcy on behalf of debtors and the horror stories are earned. The stories I could tell. I have two credit cards and I am an asshole to both of them every time there is a problem because I know how terrible that industry is. Unsecured debt collection in generally is a wretched industry in general and really should be regulated out of existence. The term in the credit card industry for someone who pays off their balance each month is “dead beat”. The system is bad and only favors people who watch their credit providers like hawks. Some people don’t want to live that life. I am literate in all debt collection laws, my rights and what these companies can do and I barely want to live that life. The system is just bad.
|
United States42694 Posts
On July 06 2017 17:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I took home ec growing up. I'm 30. I can balance a checkbook and manage my money just fine, by keeping current on the trends in the market place. It's not perfect and my credit is shot from helping family and taking credit when I couldn't afford it, but I understand the market. I did a fantasy stock exchange a long time ago, and made out like a bandit on smart investing and watching the market. You can teach yourself the skills you need in life. Some people don't have access to things like that. Simple tools to help you.
Now that I'm older and looking for a home to buy, my credit from 12 years ago still haunts me. It'll take me a long time to get that up to where it needs to be (5 years tops), but it's a hindrance now. I can't provide for myself, let alone a prospective family, with shit credit. And there is no way to get out from under it other than playing by their rules.
In America, credit is king. If you don't have it, you won't make it. I have a great network and connections in all sectors of every industry, but my credit won't allow me to take advantage of that, and that, my friends, is what is killing me.
EDIT: I don't mean this in an offense manner. But fuck anyone who says that they made it. No, your credit history made it. And you were lucky to get as far as you could with your socioeconomic background, whereas others, who are just as, if not more than, capable, are barely breathing. Your credit got you to your position. Nothing more. You have what others "covet" because it was bought in credit and smartly managed. (All my opinion. Take it as you will).
Edit2: I was taught in history in high school that my teacher, a 40 year old white male, could sign his name and get almost anything he wanted. Because of those facts. Sure, there are extenuating circumstances to preclude that, but the point stands. I could have the same credentials, and still be denied. Solely based on my socioeconomic background.
I'm a little curious about some of the details here. Nothing from 12 years ago should still be on your credit unless you accidentally refreshed stuff. Even a bankruptcy won't still be impacting you now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
