View Poll Results: Who would you rather have as president?

Voters
59. You may not vote on this poll
  • Hillary Clinton

    19 32.20%
  • Elizabeth Warren

    40 67.80%
Page 27 of 42 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 420

Thread: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton[W:336]

  1. #261
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,400

    Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    Well thank you for your evaluation of my ability to think, but I believe I'm being entirely pragmatic. I don't want another economic collapse caused by the exact same problem which is why I made the comment about Warren that I did. It sounds really good unless you understand that, in my opinion, she is not saying she will fix the problem that caused the crash but rather will just keep it with layers more of government on top of it. And I think, pragmatically, that such would be a recipe for more serious problem on down the road.
    It seems that your entire argument is based on the notion that the housing bubble was precipitated by modifications of the CRA in 1995. Do you not realize for that to be the case, the housing bubble would have had to originate and to have primarily been based in minority areas of inner cities. Virtually every major city in the country had a housing bubble out in the upper middle class and wealthy suburbs, but I can't think of a single major city in the country that had one in the impoverished minority inner city.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  2. #262
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    05-04-15 @ 04:39 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,422

    Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Nobody at the big banks was acting smart, which is why they got the country in trouble. Do you not already know that?

    My posts aren't about saving the big banks. They are about Elizabeth Warren's CFPB driving out the smaller banks so the big banks are the ones left standing at the end of the day.

    You are arguing with me for the sake of arguing, but you apparently have no idea that the big banks are doing fine, and the small ones aren't - and won't. If you want the dangerous, irresponsible, powerful and very suspect big banks to get bigger, then please support Elizabeth Warren.
    It wasn't just 'bi banks', it was MANY parts of the financial sector.

    YOUR premise is Warren's 'policies' are bad for smaller banks, which is just MORE CONservative crap. You guys are NEVER on the correct side of history. For DECADES you said banks would do what's in their own institutions best interests. Hasn't EVER worked out that way

    Yes, Warren's policies will hurt small banks *shaking head*


    7. Plenty of Smart People Support Restoring Glass-Steagall

    3:41 – Elizabeth Warren

    glass-steagall Archives | Too Big Has Failed


    CONservatives ALWAYS making things as simple as possible then arguing from that premise instead of the bigger picture

    Conservatives Can't Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis


    The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

    Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed.

    Politics Most Blatant | Center for American Progress



    Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


    http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/to...Disaster_0.pdf

  3. #263
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,486
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

    Quote Originally Posted by dad2three2001 View Post
    WEIRD, YOUR LINK SAYS

    'Bush's top economist, Gregory Mankiw, warned: "The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter for the financial system as a whole." He too proposed reforms, and they too went nowhere.'

    WHY DID BUSH DO THIS THEN

    'June 17, 2004

    Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.

    Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


    "(In 2000, CLINTON) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

    How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

    "In 2004 9BUSH) , the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."

    http://business.gwu.edu/creua/resear...ie-freddie.pdf


    SO THE DEMS ARE TO BLAME BECAUSE THE GOP COULDN'T BRING UP A VOTE IN 2005 ON A WATERED DOWN GSE REFORM BILL THAT PASSED WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT IN THE GOP MAJORITY HOUSE? WEIRD

    Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.


    OOPS

    OH RIGHT THAT WAS THE DEMS FAULT *shaking head*

    Freddie Mac's Secret Plan To Kill Reform - CBS News

    One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.


    Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform.

    The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis, says Mr Oxley, now vice-chairman of Nasdaq.”

    “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

    Oxley was Chairman of the House Financial Services committee and sponsor of the only reform bill to pass any chamber of the republican controlled congress


    TIMELINE:

    The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


    Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


    http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/to...Disaster_0.pdf

    OOPS
    I am not saying nor have I ever said that the Bush policies were without fault and without justifiable criticism. BUT. . . the poorly disguised hatred of George W. Bush triggered a lot of opinions from the left doing their damndest to hang the whole of all economic problems around his neck. So I'll refer again to that Bloomberg Market article I posted earlier that expressed the opinion that despite his shrill critics, Bush was not the primary or even a catalyst for the housing crash of 2008. And this article in the NY Times appears to agree with them:

    [indent]Federal banking regulators in the Bush administration are poised to limit the nation's primary law requiring small banks to serve low-income residents in their own neighborhoods through housing investments and development project. . . .
    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/20/nyregion/20bank.html[indent]

    So in 2004, the Bush administration was actually doing its damndest to mitigate the ramped up risky loans that had been broadly escalated by the Clinton administration. And he was accused by the left of catering to special interests, hating the poor, hurting the middle class, yadda yadda.

    It really helps to set aside partisanship and hard core propaganda from all sources to get at the truth of some of these things.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  4. #264
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 06:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    38,951

    Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    Yes, I addressed this point but then you claimed you weren't talking about Basel III
    Another significant regulation is “Basel III,” an international framework for banking regulations, which U.S. regulators must decide how to adopt. Basel III includes increased capital standards, which means banks must hold more money in order to issue residential mortgages. Small banks worry this will hurt their business.

    Warren said Basel III should be applied to large financial institutions, not small banks. “There’s no reason to believe that current regulations are not completely adequate for managing the risks posed by small banks,” Warren said. “Basel III is about risks posed to the American economy, and that means how to reduce the risks posed by the large financial institutions. Small financial institutions do not pose the same risk.”
    I assume this post was to me? Basel doesn't impact the community banks until 2015, and there is a phase in period. I wasn't talking about Basel when I posted that quote you included. By the way, community banks are right now beholden to capital ratios to lend, with or without the impact of Basel.

    Banks didn't have to add staff to manage Basel, they won't have to add staff to manage Basel. If you read my many posts in this thread, you will see that I was talking about other regulations that the CFPB have put forth. Basel isn't the brainchild of the CFPB. It's the brainchild of the Fed, the FDIC, and the OCC.

  5. #265
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    05-04-15 @ 04:39 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,422

    Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Nobody at the big banks was acting smart, which is why they got the country in trouble. Do you not already know that?

    My posts aren't about saving the big banks. They are about Elizabeth Warren's CFPB driving out the smaller banks so the big banks are the ones left standing at the end of the day.

    You are arguing with me for the sake of arguing, but you apparently have no idea that the big banks are doing fine, and the small ones aren't - and won't. If you want the dangerous, irresponsible, powerful and very suspect big banks to get bigger, then please support Elizabeth Warren.
    It wasn't just 'bi banks', it was MANY parts of the financial sector.

    YOUR premise is Warren's 'policies' are bad for smaller banks, which is just MORE CONservative crap. You guys are NEVER on the correct side of history. For DECADES you said banks would do what's in their own institutions best interests. Hasn't EVER worked out that way

    Yes, Warren's policies will hurt small banks *shaking head*


    7. Plenty of Smart People Support Restoring Glass-Steagall

    3:41 – Elizabeth Warren

    glass-steagall Archives | Too Big Has Failed


    CONservatives ALWAYS making things as simple as possible then arguing from that premise instead of the bigger picture

    Conservatives Can't Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis


    The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

    Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed.

    Politics Most Blatant | Center for American Progress



    Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


    http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/to...Disaster_0.pdf

  6. #266
    Sage
    rabbitcaebannog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 08:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,918

    Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    I assume this post was to me? Basel doesn't impact the community banks until 2015, and there is a phase in period. I wasn't talking about Basel when I posted that quote you included. By the way, community banks are right now beholden to capital ratios to lend, with or without the impact of Basel.

    Banks didn't have to add staff to manage Basel, they won't have to add staff to manage Basel. If you read my many posts in this thread, you will see that I was talking about other regulations that the CFPB have put forth. Basel isn't the brainchild of the CFPB. It's the brainchild of the Fed, the FDIC, and the OCC.
    Well, I see no link which refers to CFPB and the impact on small banks. Perhaps, I missed it. Could you please give me one link?

  7. #267
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 06:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    38,951

    Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

    Quote Originally Posted by dad2three2001 View Post
    It wasn't just 'bi banks', it was MANY parts of the financial sector.

    YOUR premise is Warren's 'policies' are bad for smaller banks, which is just MORE CONservative crap. You guys are NEVER on the correct side of history. For DECADES you said banks would do what's in their own institutions best interests. Hasn't EVER worked out that way

    Yes, Warren's policies will hurt small banks *shaking head*


    7. Plenty of Smart People Support Restoring Glass-Steagall

    3:41 – Elizabeth Warren

    glass-steagall Archives | Too Big Has Failed


    CONservatives ALWAYS making things as simple as possible then arguing from that premise instead of the bigger picture

    Conservatives Can't Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis


    The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

    Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed.

    Politics Most Blatant | Center for American Progress



    Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


    http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/to...Disaster_0.pdf
    Are you posting about the housing crisis, or are you posting about the CFPB and Elizabeth Warren? Because that's what I'm posting about. I'm not sure what your post has to do with what I said.

    Elizabeth Warren's policies will ensure the longevity of the big banks, and put the nails in the coffins of the smaller banks. That's what I'm saying, and it doesn't have to do with 2007.

  8. #268
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 06:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    38,951

    Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

    Quote Originally Posted by rabbitcaebannog View Post
    Well, I see no link which refers to CFPB and the impact on small banks. Perhaps, I missed it. Could you please give me one link?
    Do you know what the CFPB is, rabbit? You can Google it. Or you can read the posts where I gave specifics on why I think the CFPB is going to hurt consumers and small banks, and will only help the big banks.

  9. #269
    Sage
    rabbitcaebannog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 08:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,918

    Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Do you know what the CFPB is, rabbit? You can Google it. Or you can read the posts where I gave specifics on why I think the CFPB is going to hurt consumers and small banks, and will only help the big banks.
    Okay, so you have no link that proves it. It was just your personal thoughts. Fair enough.

  10. #270
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    05-04-15 @ 04:39 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    2,422

    Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    I am not saying nor have I ever said that the Bush policies were without fault and without justifiable criticism. BUT. . . the poorly disguised hatred of George W. Bush triggered a lot of opinions from the left doing their damndest to hang the whole of all economic problems around his neck. So I'll refer again to that Bloomberg Market article I posted earlier that expressed the opinion that despite his shrill critics, Bush was not the primary or even a catalyst for the housing crash of 2008. And this article in the NY Times appears to agree with them:

    [indent]Federal banking regulators in the Bush administration are poised to limit the nation's primary law requiring small banks to serve low-income residents in their own neighborhoods through housing investments and development project. . . .
    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/20/nyregion/20bank.html[indent]

    So in 2004, the Bush administration was actually doing its damndest to mitigate the ramped up risky loans that had been broadly escalated by the Clinton administration. And he was accused by the left of catering to special interests, hating the poor, hurting the middle class, yadda yadda.

    It really helps to set aside partisanship and hard core propaganda from all sources to get at the truth of some of these things.

    First YOUR premise was Bush went to Congress 17 times to reform F/F. Weird how the GOP Congress didn't take HIM seriously? AS he pushed F/F into purchasing $440 BILLION in MBS''s to meet his goals, starting in 2004

    Want to give me the link to the "Bloomberg Market article". YOU TALKING KEVIN HAZLET'S BUSH ISN'T GUILTY THING? The guy from AEI who like the rest of AEI, has been jumping through hoops to lie?

    YOUR NEW LINK, NYT? CRA. Had ZERO to do with Bush's subprime crisis. Only 6% of ALL loans 2004-2008 were done by banks even under CRA requirements, NOT that they were even done for CRA purposes, lol



    Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law

    Community Reinvestment Act, blamed for home market crash, didn't apply to the banks that did the most lending.

    BANKSTER:

    Bob Davis, executive vice president of the American Bankers Association, which lobbies Congress to streamline community reinvestment rules, said "it just isn't credible" to blame the law CRA for the crisis.

    "Institutions that are subject to CRA - that is, banks and savings asociations - were largely not involved in subprime lending," Davis said. "The bulk of the loans came through a channel that was not subject to CRA."

    Most subprime lenders weren't subject to federal lending law - The Orange County Register

    NOW let's get back to FACYS

    Clinton huh?

    The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


    "(In 2000, CLINTON) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay."

    How HUD Mortgage Policy Fed The Crisis

    "In 2004 (BUSH) , the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals."

    http://www.prmia.org/sites/default/f..._090911_v2.pdf


    The American mortgage market was about $500 billion in 1990. During the 1990s, it went up to nearly $1 trillion in 1993, peaked in 1998 at around $1.5 trillion. In 2000, it stood at $1 trillion a year. The real surge in the mortgage market began in 2001 (the year of the stock market crash). From 2000 -2004, residential originations the U.S. climbed from about $1trillion to almost $4 trillion.

    About 70% of this rise was accounted for by people refinancing their conventional mortgages at lower interest rates

    http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/to...Disaster_0.pdf


    CLINTON? LOL


    US HOUSEHOLD DEBT DOUBLED UNDER BUSH. GET HONEST, JUST ONCE

    Everything else you posit is just right wing nonsense!

Page 27 of 42 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •