Incredibly Smart or Incredibly Stupid? (2 Viewers)

[Kryst51]

Maybe it is different where I am, but no one I talked to wanted a stimulus package or a bailout. The financial sector bail out was very much despised. No one wanted help paying on their house that they bought that they couldn't afford, they simply wanted the terms that they originally were told they could have.

House prices hadn't fallen so badly like they just did for 70 years or so. 5 years ago the "responsible" thing to do was to buy a house rather than rent, because renting was throwing your money away. Buying a home was an investment. Sure you were tied to the property then, but over time your house gained in value.

That all changed with the housing crisis, where people who did what was the responsible thing to do suddenly found all of their equity gone, and possibly owing more than their house was now worth.

I agree with you that people need to take personal responsibility for their own finances and live within their means, and I think for the most part people do. There are some irresponsible people (and I personally know several of them ), but I think overall people are generally responsible.

From what I understood the housing crisis was a result of people buying too much house over what they could afford, and getting into loans that they knew nothing about how they worked. Most of the people in my office wanted the stimulus package. Maybe I have misunderstood, but that is the impression I have gotten when people have explained the whole thing to me.

 

[Alc]

It just seems like a pervavsive attitude in the US. That's all. You here it all the time. We want government funded healthcare, stimulus packages, baleouts, help paying on houses we never should have bought because we couldn't afford them, tax breaks etc because we have overspent and/or spent to much on credit

I'm not in the States, so I genuinbely have no idea, but does the 'average' American draw no distinction between any of those items?

If so, i'm understanding a lot more why so many people seem to be against universal healthcare.

 

[Kryst51]

I'm not in the States, so I genuinbely have no idea, but does the 'average' American draw no distinction between any of those items?

If so, i'm understanding a lot more why so many people seem to be against universal healthcare.

I don't know about the average American, I know that historically we have been a "pull yourself up by your boot-straps" type society, but that seems to be changing drastically. As a person who went to school for social services and counseling, and as a person who loves people in general, I have no problems with having some government programs aimed at helping the poor, children, elderly, etc... What I do have a problem with is big federal government (I don't think that's what our country was ever meant to be) and I have a problem with programs being set up so that it is more beneficial for a person not to work than too work. I think that assistance should be aimed at being just that "assistance" something that is not meant to be permanent. A lot of the classes I took in college pointed to the fact that our welfare system is set up in such a way, that the moment a person gets a job they lose a lot of their help. But their job may not pay enough to keep them afloat. So people are encouraged not to work. Our government currently seems bent on band-aiding problems instead of taking steps to fix the problem, and teaching others how to do the same so as to not avoid this in the future. In my opinion, this is occurring in all the things I mentioned. I also wonder if some things, like healthcare, might be better received if it was a function of the state as opposed to federal government. I have been re-reading the constitution in an effort to start being more politically minded (I wanted to start at the beginning ) and from what I have read so far, I thought that states were supposed to be more individually powerful so as to accomodate their different constituencies (Sp?).

 

[Adam Caramon]

From what I understood the housing crisis was a result of people buying too much house over what they could afford, and getting into loans that they knew nothing about how they worked.

This is partially true. There were a lot of lenders who pushed Adjustable Rate Mortgages. So people, using the ARM loan, could buy a house that was more than they could really afford, and the lender told them all they would have to do was refinance in 3 or 5 years (depending on the length of their ARM) to a traditional mortgage.

This would have worked fine, had the housing crisis not kicked in (which is why I don't think these were the cause of the crisis, though they definitely contributed to the size and breadth of the problem).

A lot of the classes I took in college pointed to the fact that our welfare system is set up in such a way, that the moment a person gets a job they lose a lot of their help. But their job may not pay enough to keep them afloat. So people are encouraged not to work.

This is definitely true. I know a guy who has been on unemployment for almost 2 years now. The jobs that he has any chance at pay only a little bit more than unemployment, so his rationale is "Why work when I get paid without having to?" Until he is forced to get a job, he won't.

However, I'd say he is the lazy exception to the rule. I think most people want to work, take pride in their jobs, etc.

I also wonder if some things, like healthcare, might be better received if it was a function of the state as opposed to federal government.

The scary thing with that: imagine you travel out of state on a business trip, and suddenly your healthcare coverage is either different or invalid. Its already bad enough having in network/out of network coverage with insurance companies.

 

[Kryst51]

This is partially true. There were a lot of lenders who pushed Adjustable Rate Mortgages. So people, using the ARM loan, could buy a house that was more than they could really afford, and the lender told them all they would have to do was refinance in 3 or 5 years (depending on the length of their ARM) to a traditional mortgage.

This would have worked fine, had the housing crisis not kicked in (which is why I don't think these were the cause of the crisis, though they definitely contributed to the size and breadth of the problem).

Sure it may have worked, but it is still sort of irresponsible, who knows what kind of things will happen in the future. My great grandmother used to have a saying which my Dad passed down to me, which maybe should apply here, although I know it is a little more complicated. "If you can't pay for it today, how the hell are you going to pay for it tomorrow!". People should be trying to prepare for things that could reduce their income in the future, for situations like the housing crisis, or unemployment, injuries, etc. I hope people have learned from this.

This is definitely true. I know a guy who has been on unemployment for almost 2 years now. The jobs that he has any chance at pay only a little bit more than unemployment, so his rationale is "Why work when I get paid without having to?" Until he is forced to get a job, he won't.

However, I'd say he is the lazy exception to the rule. I think most people want to work, take pride in their jobs, etc.

I don't know that it is just laziness. For instance, I have an uncle who's back has been badly injured, so he received a lot of welfare benefits. If he works over a certain amount of hours or earns more than a certain amount he loses ALL benefits. But his benefits are not enough to keep him going. I am talking about a man who has a degree in architecture and who can do trig like nothing else, but because of his injuries he lives in poverty because he can't sustain a sit down job. Nor can he do things that require more physical labor. He would love to work more, but if he does he loses his benefits completely. I also think the same is said of single moms. I remember a video in my class that was of several case studies, where people who qualified for WIC and other things like food stamps to help feed their children, etc lose those benefits if they get full time employment. But the full time employment wouldn't pay enough to provide for the family so they just don't work, so that at least they get the food they need, and there housing is subsidized as well.

The scary thing with that: imagine you travel out of state on a business trip, and suddenly your healthcare coverage is either different or invalid. Its already bad enough having in network/out of network coverage with insurance companies.

Well, I think it could be worked out to provide coverage when out-of-state, there has to be a better way. That way if people don't like what their state is doing they can move. It is a much bigger decision to move from the country if you don't agree with it. But as it stands the decision is Federal healthcare, so there is not much point in my harumphing about it.

 

[dkinley]

The scary thing with that: imagine you travel out of state on a business trip, and suddenly your healthcare coverage is either different or invalid. Its already bad enough having in network/out of network coverage with insurance companies.

This wouldn't be true if the federales hadn't of instituted boundaries for the insurance companies that we lowly serfs use. The ironic bit is that the federaly royalty is excluded from these boundaries so the cost is the same no matter where they use health services.

I am sure if you traced this rule back there would have been some crony capitalism to guarentee a monopoly over geographic regions for insurance companies.

-dK

 

[Adam Caramon]

"If you can't pay for it today, how the hell are you going to pay for it tomorrow!".

Generally good advice, but following it to the letter would mean your average person would never own a home (who ever buys a home for cash?)

I don't know that it is just laziness. For instance, I have an uncle who's back has been badly injured, so he received a lot of welfare benefits. If he works over a certain amount of hours or earns more than a certain amount he loses ALL benefits. But his benefits are not enough to keep him going.

Well, this is where things start to get real dicey. On the (R) side, people would say that he shouldn't be receiving welfare benefits. If he got injured on the job, the company should be footing the bill. If he didn't. then too bad for him. Why should the government give someone free money because they got hurt? We've become such a nanny state (etc, etc, ad nauseum).

He would love to work more, but if he does he loses his benefits completely.

You would think that a company would find a way to harness his talents and also compensate for his circumstances. I hate to hear about people who legitamtely want to work but cannot find work.

I also think the same is said of single moms. I remember a video in my class that was of several case studies, where people who qualified for WIC and other things like food stamps to help feed their children, etc lose those benefits if they get full time employment.

No doubt, a lot of the government programs need to be restructured. Personally, I think if you receive any kind of cash payments from the government, you should have to prove that you're attempting to get off the assistance. A case worker should visit you at scheduled times and discuss your situation, see if they can provide resources to you to help you get off the assistance.

I am sure if you traced this rule back there would have been some crony capitalism to guarentee a monopoly over geographic regions for insurance companies.

Of that, I have no doubt.

 

[Alc]

No doubt, a lot of the government programs need to be restructured. Personally, I think if you receive any kind of cash payments from the government, you should have to prove that you're attempting to get off the assistance. A case worker should visit you at scheduled times and discuss your situation, see if they can provide resources to you to help you get off the assistance.

This one always comes up in UK discussions of 'benefit cheats', etc. The problem is the sheer level of work involved. You'd need a small army of people if you wanted to thoroughly check every claimaint.

Then you have the problem of subjective judgement being questioned, tribunals being needed, etc. In an ideal world where every person doing the investigation could be relied on to be both entirely objective and 100% accurate in their judgements, it would be a far easier task.

It's easy enough to prove you've been applying for jobs, but how could you tell if someone was deliberately messing up interviews?

Likewise, I could apply for jobs for which I was woefully unqualified, yet try my best in the interview. Who's to say I'm not just trying to better myself, as opposed to trying not to get the job?

Unfortunately, as nice as it would be, you'd never get close to totally effective.

 

[Kryst51]

Generally good advice, but following it to the letter would mean your average person would never own a home (who ever buys a home for cash?)

Well, in this case it would apply more to the mortgage payment as opposed to the whole mortgage amount.

Well, this is where things start to get real dicey. On the (R) side, people would say that he shouldn't be receiving welfare benefits. If he got injured on the job, the company should be footing the bill. If he didn't. then too bad for him. Why should the government give someone free money because they got hurt? We've become such a nanny state (etc, etc, ad nauseum).

I don't really know the circumstances of his injury or the specifics or who from he's receiving the help, so I can't say to his specific case. I agree about the necessity for the company to pay if it were an on the job injury. But as far as the free money bit, I am OK with "helping", I just wish it were better structured so as to allow people to help themselves, and then subsidize the difference, encourage work as opposed to non-work.

You would think that a company would find a way to harness his talents and also compensate for his circumstances. I hate to hear about people who legitamtely want to work but cannot find work.

I agree completely, but companies don't always work the way they should, and as I said above (just to repeat) I don't know the circumstances completely.

No doubt, a lot of the government programs need to be restructured. Personally, I think if you receive any kind of cash payments from the government, you should have to prove that you're attempting to get off the assistance. A case worker should visit you at scheduled times and discuss your situation, see if they can provide resources to you to help you get off the assistance.

Although I agree with this in general, there is one problem. Over 50% of people who receive assistance are minors and/or children under the age of 18. So though their parents may be lazy, or sincerely need the help, its the children that suffer as well, so its hard to just say, "If you don't work the benefits are cut off". I don't know what the solution is, As a recipient of welfare as a child due to my mothers inability to work due to mental illness, I am happy that we received it. I just wish there were a better way. There are certainly a lot flaws in the system.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

So many topics within thread, so many ideas to discuss...

First, the "entitlement" mentality came into being right around the deepest part of the "Great Depression." President Roosevelt (FDR) instituted various public works programs. That got people working constructively (pardon the pun) on roads and bridges and buildings. But of course, FDR wanted too much of a good thing, which is where the welfare "safety net" of Social Security came into being.

I'm not against Social Security per se - I'm against what happened to it. If we really HAD invested the money taken from your paycheck and let it draw interest, we would have been pretty much OK. But all that money lying around makes politicians nervous - so they spent it before it burned a hole in their pockets. Now, the social security vault is full of Congressional I.O.U. notes (literally! It's a vault somewhere in Kansas City if I remember the article correctly.)

The big issue many of us have with the welfare state is the erosion of monetary reserves we SHOULD have had if everyone had bought into the idea of working today and saving for a rainy day. My father-in-law was a house contractor, so for him that often was quite literal. My wife's family were never rich but they owned their own home and never starved or had to go naked. (Didn't hurt that my mother-in-law had sewing skills!)

This is going to be very harsh sounding to some, and I make no apology for that tone, but the problem now is that everyone sees other folks getting money from Uncle Sam and they want their share. But folks like me and my wife worked nearly all of our normal working-age careers putting money into the system. These other folks did not. If you don't understand that you can get some money out because you put some money in first, then unless there is an extenuating (and precisely constructed) circumstance, I'd rather see you starve in total poverty.

I see the illegals coming to this country to ride the gravy train because our own laws hamstring us from deporting their sorry arses rather then having to pay for their hospitalization. Well, guess what? I'm not alone. Now a total of EIGHT states are considering passing laws that will eventually force Congress to act. Arizona led the way but they aren't alone. Rather than make their own countries work, they want to come to the USA and break us. To which I say, screw that. If you work for a living and pay into the system, that's one thing. But now you take jobs from others at a time when we don't have enough jobs to go around?

Before I pop that gasket, I'll break from this post and switch to a different topic.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

My take on the mortgage crisis is more complex. We have allowed certain mistakes to be made in the free market system. I would prefer to see those mistakes corrected.

Right now, a very big problem with the financial industry is that the big corporations are run by a board of directors but those directors are beholden to investors (stock holders). This causes the corporations to not place their customers first. So to placate their stockholders and make some money, the financial guys have to come up with these speculative "instruments" (fancy way of saying "scam") that do things unrelated to reality. Thus the birth of the derivatives market and the Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). The only way to make money off of either of those is to get in early and get out early. It's a pyramid scheme. Or as Bernie Madoff ran, a Ponzi scheme.

The mortgage companies issue a loan and hold a mortgage. But federal law limits how much money can be loaned by that bank. To get around that limit, the banks SELL THE MORTGAGE. Now they have liquidity again and someone else is holding the mortgage. Of course, they can't change the terms of the mortgage, so that means the same amount of money is going to come in that would always have come in. The bank sold the loan for less than its face value to supply a profit motive for the mortgage buyer. But now, that person sells it again. Total value can't change, so the margin gets thinner. The REIT buys the mortgages for rock bottom margins.

Now here's the kicker. The banks and loan companies that originally issued the mortgages were aware that they were going to take a loss when they sold the mortgages to a holding company, so they decided to "make it up on volume." But the only way to do that is to issue loans to people that otherwise should not have qualified for the loan in the first place. To keep up the volume of sales (well, mortgages), the banks had to lower the standards.

Insurance companies have the same problem. The conflict is that if you promise you'll provide financial assistance in certain circumstances, your stockholders can vote out the folks who were in office during a disaster because they paid out "too much money."

The points in common are that both finance and insurance companies are publicly traded. This means that their primary interests aren't embodied in their customers. Their primary interests are embodied in their shareholders. They thus are serving the wrong masters.

Now let's toss in corporate greed. The banks and insurance companies hire these hot-shot financial wizards to manage large chunks of money. It ain't an easy job. So in order to make this work, they promise huge bonuses to these wizards - who turn out to be parlor-grade illusionists, not true wizards. They aren't held accountable unless they screw the pooch - in the office in public at that. The boards of directors are no better. They get hugs bonuses even when most of the company is losing money, because the goals they set for themselves paint rosey pictures about corporate health.

While I don't like the idea of federal regulation, I think it has become necessary for the feds to step in to break up some of these practices. Some of the schlemiels who take those bonuses should have been fired long ago. The corporations use the excuse that they need these guys to manage the money and the bonuses are the only way to hold them. My answer is, "If they were really making money for their customers, you SHOULD pay them. But if not, you should FIRE them with NO bonuses at all."

My soapbox is beginning to creak a little, so I'll step down and get some serious work don for a change. I still have to pay into MY social security, after all.

 

[Adam Caramon]

The big issue many of us have with the welfare state is the erosion of monetary reserves we SHOULD have had if everyone had bought into the idea of working today and saving for a rainy day.

The only time I ever hear someone use the term "welfare state" it is in regards to the state taking care of people, enabling those people to not have to work and still receive money from the government.

If you don't understand that you can get some money out because you put some money in first, then unless there is an extenuating (and precisely constructed) circumstance, I'd rather see you starve in total poverty.

I'll go just as harsh, but slightly different. I think if you're receiving benefits from the government because you're poor, or you have children, or what have you, you should be required to perform work service. Picking up trash in parks, cleaning public schools, etc. We could have a mini army of workers benefiting society.

I'd be willing to bet a lot less people would be receiving benefits if this were the case, and those who do wouldn't be looked at as harshly by those completely against entitlements. Of course, specific exceptions would be made on a case-by-case basis.

I see the illegals coming to this country to ride the gravy train because our own laws hamstring us from deporting their sorry arses rather then having to pay for their hospitalization.

The illegal situation is very murky. I'm all for deporting illegal immigrants, but I think you have to be willing to hit the business' that hire the illegal immigrants. Instead of passing a law that requires inidivduals to prove their citizenship upon request, pass a law that requires business' to prove the citizenship of their employees. If you can't validate an employee as a legal citizen, you can't hire them.

Add in very stiff penalties levied against business' that are proven to hire illegals ($100,000 per individual perhaps?), put some resources towards policing and enforcing this, and the problem will be solved.

 

[Yarp]

Just to throw a little more fuel on the immigration fire. I have two points.

1) Americans claiming that immigrants can't move there is hypocrisy of the highest order. America was founded on immigration, and is still dependent on it today. Unfortuantely, USA, and now the UK, governments get good headlines from making people believe they can't get a job because of immigrants 'stealing' them. In my experience, it is because people have too high opinion of themselves (I'm not working there for that amount of money!!).

2) As someone who has lived in the USA (southern california) for 10 years whilst growing up, how many people would be able to maintain their standard of living without immigrants (illegal or legal)?? None, who will pick fruit for 12 hours a day? Who will mow your lawn for $5? Clean your pool? Clean the restaurant?

America needs immigrants, both legal and illegal, and the government knows it. That is why they don't seriously attempt to stop it. Immigrants don't take jobs away from others, because in most cases, the others wouldn't take the job in the first place!

 

[Kryst51]

Just to throw a little more fuel on the immigration fire. I have two points.

1) Americans claiming that immigrants can't move there is hypocrisy of the highest order. America was founded on immigration, and is still dependent on it today. Unfortuantely, USA, and now the UK, governments get good headlines from making people believe they can't get a job because of immigrants 'stealing' them. In my experience, it is because people have too high opinion of themselves (I'm not working there for that amount of money!!).

This statement is ridiculous, yes we were founded on immigration, but should we let people enter ILLEGALLY? I don't think so.... Also, do we let people in until we reach a point that we can't provide for our current population? Of course not, at some point immigration would have to be limited. If a person wants to LEGALLY emmigrate to the US then great, two thumbs up.... I have several friends who have worked long and hard and put up with sponsors who took advantage of their situation in order to gain their citizenship... By letting illegals stay in the US and collect benefits without consequence is a slap in the face to those who do enter legally and put in the effort.

 

[Yarp]

I have to ask you two questions relating to your post:

1) Where did I say you should allow illegal immigration?

Nevermind the fact that if you allow it, it isn't illegal, I said the USA depends on it. I never said open the floodgates, however, some illegal immigration is needed to maintain certain aspects of work (farming is a big one in SoCal). I would ask that people keep their minds open however.

2) What benefits are illegal immigrants currently collecting? I know a few UK ex-pats that would be very interested in these benefits!!

I would just re-iterate that just because my opinion is different, doesn't make it ridiculous.

 

[Kryst51]

I have to ask you two questions relating to your post:

1) Where did I say you should allow illegal immigration?

Nevermind the fact that if you allow it, it isn't illegal, I said the USA depends on it. I never said open the floodgates, however, some illegal immigration is needed to maintain certain aspects of work (farming is a big one in SoCal). I would ask that people keep their minds open however.

2) What benefits are illegal immigrants currently collecting? I know a few UK ex-pats that would be very interested in these benefits!!

I would just re-iterate that just because my opinion is different, doesn't make it ridiculous.

1) You didn't, it was implied in the "Americans claiming that immigrants can't move there is hypocrisy" and the "America needs immigrants, both legal and illegal, and the government knows it."

2) Really I found it ridiculous as I understood what you were to be saying is that BECAUSE we were founded on immigration we SHOULD continue to always let people immigrate here, there is no way we could let that happen forever.

If it requires "illegal" immigration to keep the country going, then there is a problem with our laws, we need to either make those people legal, and they pay taxes just like I do, or they need to leave, it's not fair.... as far as needing illegals in order to farm, I think that points to our greater norm of providing welfare (to people who are legal) to those who won't work, there are plenty of people who should have jobs, maybe they could fill the gap.... I don't believe the illegality is ever justified... It's like saying "yes, I stole that grocery cart full of food, yes it's illegal but my family needed it, I don't care that groceries will get more expensive for those who are paying for it and no I don't expect to go to jail for stealing, I expect for everyone to let me walk out of the store every month with a cart full of groceries illegally. As far as the benifits received - um, medical care is the only one at the front of my mind, and money that taxes aren't paid on is another, they use our roads contribute to the pollution that I breathe and for free. Do they have to pay for car insurance or registration? Oh, and how about property taxes?

 

[Vassago]

1) You didn't, it was implied in the "Americans claiming that immigrants can't move there is hypocrisy" and the "America needs immigrants, both legal and illegal, and the government knows it."

2) Really I found it ridiculous as I understood what you were to be saying is that BECAUSE we were founded on immigration we SHOULD continue to always let people immigrate here, there is no way we could let that happen forever.

If it requires "illegal" immigration to keep the country going, then there is a problem with our laws, we need to either make those people legal, and they pay taxes just like I do, or they need to leave, it's not fair.... as far as needing illegals in order to farm, I think that points to our greater norm of providing welfare (to people who are legal) to those who won't work, there are plenty of people who should have jobs, maybe they could fill the gap.... I don't believe the illegality is ever justified... It's like saying "yes, I stole that grocery cart full of food, yes it's illegal but my family needed it, I don't care that groceries will get more expensive for those who are paying for it and no I don't expect to go to jail for stealing, I expect for everyone to let me walk out of the store every month with a cart full of groceries illegally. As far as the benifits received - um, medical care is the only one at the front of my mind, and money that taxes aren't paid on is another, they use our roads contribute to the pollution that I breathe and for free. Do they have to pay for car insurance or registration? Oh, and how about property taxes?

Not fair for the the end user, but necessary for the consumers, you and I, who it may not directly affect. Illegal immigration is truly a necessary evil for the very reason that it keeps the cost of good affordable. These are very valid points IMO. I wish it weren't so though.

I'm more concerned about the illegal immigrants who come into this country and commit worse crimes. If someone wants to come here and work 75 hours a week for little money to help support their children at home, so be it, as long as they aren't running cocaine across the border too.

 

[Kryst51]

Not fair for the the end user, but necessary for the consumers, you and I, who it may not directly affect. Illegal immigration is truly a necessary evil for the very reason that it keeps the cost of good affordable. These are very valid points IMO. I wish it weren't so though.

I'm more concerned about the illegal immigrants who come into this country and commit worse crimes. If someone wants to come here and work 75 hours a week for little money to help support their children at home, so be it, as long as they aren't running cocaine across the border too.

What happens when you get into a car accident with an illegal, or again all the money we end up paying in taxes and other things in order to support them medically (which is necessary, I would never want to deny anybody, legal or illegal, access to emergency care)

But that's besides the point, If it's illegal it shouldn't happen, if we rely on the cheap labor that they provide, then we should create a legal way for it to happen. I'm OK with that, but make it a legal option that helps benefit them and us. Then create appropriate ways to deal with those who do not fall under these laws. I agree with Yarp in that if it happens then its legal... We need to either enforce our laws or change them... If we as a country want to be so humanitarian, or on the other hand greedy and reap the benefits of the cheap labor that illegals offer, then we need to find a way to change our laws to make them being here legal but it still more beneficial for them to remain a citizen of their own country. So as to have the ability to prosecute, extradite, or whatever those who misuse the system or commit crimes, etc.

 

[Steve R.]

For Those Deported, Court Rulings Come Too Late

FTC: Don't Sell or Use Customer Information of Gay Youth

The "bigger" issue with the debate on illegal immigration is that the US seems to be moving from a nation based on law to one based on "social justice". That is, if you belong to a certain "oppressed" group the law somehow does not apply to you.

In the case of the New York Times articles, an immigrant was deported based on committing another crime. The Times Writes: "Under the ruling last month, which echoed decisions by four federal circuit courts, including the one covering New York, legal residents with minor drug convictions are eligible to have an immigration judge weigh their offenses against other factors in their lives and decide whether to let them stay. " (Emphasis added).

In the case of the Electronic Frontier Article: "The Federal Trade Commission has some strong words for the former publishers of a defunct magazine and website for gay youth: don't sell or use personal information provided by your customers. It's probably illegal." (Emphasis added). In this case, the FTC should be applying this standard to everyone. All personal information, irrespective of belonging to any particular group, should be protected.

 

[Kryst51]

For Those Deported, Court Rulings Come Too Late

FTC: Don't Sell or Use Customer Information of Gay Youth

The "bigger" issue with the debate on illegal immigration is that the US seems to be moving from a nation based on law to one based on "social justice". That is, if you belong to a certain "oppressed" group the law somehow does not apply to you.

In the case of the New York Times articles, an immigrant was deported based on committing another crime. The Times Writes: "Under the ruling last month, which echoed decisions by four federal circuit courts, including the one covering New York, legal residents with minor drug convictions are eligible to have an immigration judge weigh their offenses against other factors in their lives and decide whether to let them stay. " (Emphasis added).

In the case of the Electronic Frontier Article: "The Federal Trade Commission has some strong words for the former publishers of a defunct magazine and website for gay youth: don't sell or use personal information provided by your customers. It's probably illegal." (Emphasis added). In this case, the FTC should be applying this standard to everyone. All personal information, irrespective of belonging to any particular group, should be protected.

I agree with you completely.