• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton[W:336]

Who would you rather have as president?

  • Total voters
    49
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

rabbitcaebannog said:
Well then if you are specifically talking about RESPA, Reg Z and E, TILA etc......you've NEVER answered the question how that hurts small banks but I'll patiently wait.
Click to expand...

Sure I did. Many times. And there are links from non-partisan sources that are along the same line I've been posting about.

The regulations can be handled by the big banks. They can afford them, and they are staffed for them. They are also the ones (if you recall) who were making bad loans...intentionally.

The community banks historically didn't make bad loans. Yet they are now overburdened with regs they can't manage, aren't staffed for, have to make very large capital investments in software & consulting to handle, etc. There are also very strict burdens on them as far as capital ratios which enable them to lend money. Those ratios are close to unrealistic, and as a result, they will even more than ever stop lending. That will hurt consumers and small businesses.

They will collapse even more, and become targets of large banks. That is also not good for consumers and most especially not small businesses.

That's what I've said repeatedly in this thread.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Middleground said:
And that is when de-regulation started. Under Reagan.

Now how many banks went under from the depression reforms to the early 80s? We're talking 50 years here. Tell me, how many???
Click to expand...

Tell you how many what? Banks went under in the 1940s? I showed you how many banks were around 30 years ago versus now. I'd like to do the research for you on banks that collapsed during the Depression, but I don't have any interest in that myself because it has nothing to do with Elizabeth Warren and the CFPB.

You said community banks were doing fine the last 50 years, MG. I showed you that your statement was not accurate.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

AlbqOwl said:
The devil is always in the details on something like that isn't it?

And, from your link, here is the devil in Warren's stated position on that, right out of what some would call liberal la-la land:

Any housing-finance legislation should include an explicit government guarantee and solve servicer and trustee problems for modifying mortgages, Warren said. The new system shouldn’t increase advantages for large banks, which would exacerbate the problem of lenders being deemed too big to fail, and the U.S. guarantee must serve the entire primary market, she said.​

I am not finding anywhere that she is suggesting that people should save their money and wait until they can afford a home before they buy one. I can applaud better verification on ability to pay, if I could just shake the idea that she interprets 'ability to pay' meaning determining whether they qualify for federal guarantees. Seems to me that her idea for regulation reform is to make sure the 'risky loans' are fully backed by the federal government.

If I am shown to be wrong about that, I'll fess up that I was wrong. But I have seen nothing in Warren's general point of view or philosophy that gives me much confidence that she means anything else.
Click to expand...

That's because she didn't. Warren, like a true Progressive, refuses to make the borrowers have any responsibility for their actions. In her mind, it's everyone else's fault.

That link is to QM/ATR which I've mentioned a few times in this thread. QM/ATR is going to drive an enormous percentage of community banks & credit unions out of the lending business. They can't handle it, and not because they were ever making risky loans to begin with, but because of what's involved in the documentation, underwriting etc. of loans now. So I hope people are happy when they can only go to Bank of America, Chase, and the other big banks to get a mortgage, because that is what is going to happen in the end.

Warren is helping the big banks and that's why they love her.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Cardinal said:
Typo. Closures. Your own article cites the smallest number of banks being open in the last 30 years. Why is that? Why did the total number of banks drop through the basement beginning in the 80's with deregulation? You work in the industry, so pretend I'm an idiot and explain it to me simply. And if you don't feel you have to pretend, all the better.

I think i speak for everyone when I say that I always welcome insight from someone with first-hand knowledge on a subject, even when I disagree with him. I'm always happy when Turtledude brings something informative (and concisely) about law into a thread, and I think I can count the number of things we agree on on the fingers of one hand. So that's all I'm asking for here. As it stands, your manner of bringing specifics to this discussion is vague and obscure (such as your frequent use of acronym-dumping), almost bordering on being evasive.
Click to expand...

Did I miss your definition of "independent banks"? If you want me to answer any of your posts, I'll ask you one more time to define what you put out there in a post. You are avoiding it to a degree I've never seen anyone avoid being asked what a post they made means. With all due respect, kindly don't accuse me of being evasive. I've answered every question I've been asked. You've ignored the same question repeatedly.

Please let me know what you meant when you said "independent bank" and I'll be more than happy to keep posting in this thread to you.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

dad2three2001 said:
Squishy narrative, that's what YOU are. Your entire premise was people aren't stupid and don't need someone between them and the Banksters. Honesty, try it once!
Click to expand...

Okay, you think people are stupid. We disagree. I don't think everyone is stupid.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:
Okay, you think people are stupid. We disagree. I don't think everyone is stupid.
Click to expand...

What percentage of people, would you guesstimate, are stupid.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:
Did I miss your definition of "independent banks"? If you want me to answer any of your posts, I'll ask you one more time to define what you put out there in a post. You are avoiding it to a degree I've never seen anyone avoid being asked what a post they made means. With all due respect, kindly don't accuse me of being evasive. I've answered every question I've been asked. You've ignored the same question repeatedly.

Please let me know what you meant when you said "independent bank" and I'll be more than happy to keep posting in this thread to you.
Click to expand...

here you go, they are the banks these bankers work for: local community banks
ICBA - Advocacy - 2014 Policy Resolutions
their agenda is shown for your benefit. notice their opposition to a continuation of too-big-to-fail
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:
Okay, you think people are stupid. We disagree. I don't think everyone is stupid.
Click to expand...

Results of the Bush subprime crisis and over 40% of US voting for McSame then Romney says YOU are wrong :)
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:
Did I miss your definition of "independent banks"? If you want me to answer any of your posts, I'll ask you one more time to define what you put out there in a post. You are avoiding it to a degree I've never seen anyone avoid being asked what a post they made means. With all due respect, kindly don't accuse me of being evasive. I've answered every question I've been asked. You've ignored the same question repeatedly.

Please let me know what you meant when you said "independent bank" and I'll be more than happy to keep posting in this thread to you.
Click to expand...

Upgrade "bordering on evasive" to "full-on evasive." Your fixation on one word in an attempt to avoid bringing any concrete insight is transparent as hell, but this is what I've come to recognize from your posting style since you've begun here: bring nothing, be as condescending as you possibly can to everyone in the room, and then leave the room no better (and measurably worse) than you found it. For the most part I try to behave on this site as I would if I were using my real name, and I simply can't believe you behave in real life as you do here. You'd be an instant social pariah.
 
Last edited:
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Cardinal said:
Upgrade "bordering on evasive" to "full-on evasive." Your fixation on one word in an attempt to avoid bringing any concrete insight is transparent as hell, but this is what I've come to recognize from your posting style since you've begun here: bring nothing, be as condescending as you possibly can to everyone in the room, and then leave the room no better (and measurably worse) than you found it. For the most part I try to behave on this site as I would if I were using my real name, and I simply can't believe you behave in real life as you do here. You'd be outcast from every social event instantly.
Click to expand...

So you can't define what you said, which leads me to the obvious - you don't even know what you said. Have a great Father's Day, Cardinal!
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Cardinal said:
Upgrade "bordering on evasive" to "full-on evasive." Your fixation on one word in an attempt to avoid bringing any concrete insight is transparent as hell, but this is what I've come to recognize from your posting style since you've begun here: bring nothing, be as condescending as you possibly can to everyone in the room, and then leave the room no better (and measurably worse) than you found it. For the most part I try to behave on this site as I would if I were using my real name, and I simply can't believe you behave in real life as you do here. You'd be outcast from every social event instantly.
Click to expand...
... which may be why we so sooo many of her posts
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

justabubba said:
here you go, they are the banks these bankers work for: local community banks
ICBA - Advocacy - 2014 Policy Resolutions
their agenda is shown for your benefit. notice their opposition to a continuation of too-big-to-fail
Click to expand...

He wasn't talking about the ICBA in his post. I know the ICBA very well.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:
That's because she didn't. Warren, like a true Progressive, refuses to make the borrowers have any responsibility for their actions. In her mind, it's everyone else's fault.

That link is to QM/ATR which I've mentioned a few times in this thread. QM/ATR is going to drive an enormous percentage of community banks & credit unions out of the lending business. They can't handle it, and not because they were ever making risky loans to begin with, but because of what's involved in the documentation, underwriting etc. of loans now. So I hope people are happy when they can only go to Bank of America, Chase, and the other big banks to get a mortgage, because that is what is going to happen in the end.

Warren is helping the big banks and that's why they love her.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the people borrowing the money during Bush's subprime crisis were at fault, NOT the Bankster who gave up lending standards and wrote the checks *shaking head*
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:
So you can't define what you said, which leads me to the obvious - you don't even know what you said. Have a great Father's Day, Cardinal!
Click to expand...

It's your reputation. Have fun with it.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

ecofarm said:
What percentage of people, would you guesstimate, are stupid.
Click to expand...

No clue. I've never had to think about it. I guess it depends on your definition of stupid, which is broad. In terms of what I'm talking about in this thread, the stupid people were the ones who got themselves in trouble. One example I gave earlier were the people who made $50,000 a year and wanted to live in a $750,000 house, and took very foolish mortgages so they could do so. They are stupid, as are the ones in another example I gave where someone with $100 in his checking account writes a check for $350. That's just fundamental math.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Cardinal said:
It's your reputation. Have fun with it.
Click to expand...

I'm married, I don't need to worry about a reputation anymore. That was only in my early college days before I met my husband and made dumb mistakes when I was drunk.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

dad2three2001 said:
Yeah, the people borrowing the money during Bush's subprime crisis were at fault, NOT the Bankster who gave up lending standards and wrote the checks *shaking head*
Click to expand...

Maybe we run with a different crowd. Me, my friends, my family, we are all responsible for our money. It's a pretty good way to live.

But hey, if Warren has her way, the only banks you can go to are those very very large banks that were making the bad loans. Good thing they will prevail, and the small ones that didn't do anything foolish will fold.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:
I'm married, I don't need to worry about a reputation anymore.
Click to expand...

Wow. That...actually clarifies everything.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:
Tell you how many what? Banks went under in the 1940s? I showed you how many banks were around 30 years ago versus now. I'd like to do the research for you on banks that collapsed during the Depression, but I don't have any interest in that myself because it has nothing to do with Elizabeth Warren and the CFPB.

You said community banks were doing fine the last 50 years, MG. I showed you that your statement was not accurate.
Click to expand...


Wall Street and Main Street Grew At the Same Pace From 1940-1980. Since Then, Not So Much. Why Is That?

financialization Archives | Too Big Has Failed

The magnitude of the current financial crisis reflects the failure of an economic and regulatory philosophy that proved increasingly influential in policy circles during the past three decades. This philosophy, guided more by theory than historical experience, held that private financial institutions not insured by the government could be largely trusted to manage their own risks—to regulate themselves. The crisis has suggested otherwise


From Crisis to Calm

Of course, financial panics and crises are nothing new. For most of the nation’s history, they represented a regular and often debilitating feature of American life. Until the Great Depression, major crises struck about every 15 to 20 years—in 1792, 1797, 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907, and 1929-33.

But then the crises stopped. In fact, the United States did not suffer another major banking crisis for just about 50 years

A risk-management plan to help prevent financial crises | Harvard Magazine Sep-Oct 2009
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:
He wasn't talking about the ICBA in his post. I know the ICBA very well.
Click to expand...

who would independent community bankers be working for instead? please don't also run away from that easy question
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

justabubba said:
who would independent community bankers be working for instead? please don't also run away from that easy question
Click to expand...

The ICBA is a membership group. Community banks have to pay to join.

Based on his original post when he mentioned "independent banks", he wasn't talking about the ICBA.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:
I'm married, I don't need to worry about a reputation anymore. That was only in my early college days before I met my husband and made dumb mistakes when I was drunk.
Click to expand...


Wait, what?
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:
Maybe we run with a different crowd. Me, my friends, my family, we are all responsible for our money. It's a pretty good way to live.

But hey, if Warren has her way, the only banks you can go to are those very very large banks that were making the bad loans. Good thing they will prevail, and the small ones that didn't do anything foolish will fold.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was only the 'bad actors' who doubled household debt under Bush reign when he invoked strong federal rules (from the civil war) over the objections of ALL 50 states on predatory lenders!

Your premise, like just about everything CONservatives posit, is still garbage...
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:
The ICBA is a membership group. Community banks have to pay to join.

Based on his original post when he mentioned "independent banks", he wasn't talking about the ICBA.
Click to expand...

so, your response is that independent community bankers do NOT work for independent community banks?
let me know if i missed anything in the translation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom