Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton[W:336]

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

Well, even though we aren't specifically discussing this, here is something quick and very simplified (it is very complex). There is something she was behind called QM/ATR. It's a result of the people who foolishly overextended themselves on their mortgages.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I looked it up. It requires that lenders verify a borrower's ability to repay loans, so that banks don't get into a habit of 'risky lending' (aka predatory lending).

QM/ATR severely limits a bank's ability to make a 1-4 family first mortgage loan to consumers. So as time goes on, credit will be more and more scarce, and you will see cries of "we can't get a home loan anymore from our bank/credit union", and the small banks and credit unions will look like the bad guys.

Click to expand...

That's a fair argument.

There is a very little percentage of Americans who are too dumb to make smart decisions, so Warren, believing that all Americans are too dumb to make smart decisions, have put processes in place in the banks that make it so that there are guidelines to determine what is a good loan versus what is a bad loan. Most Americans didn't get themselves into trouble with overextension and signing contracts for loans they had no chance of repaying.

Click to expand...

From good ol' Wikipedia:

The U.S. subprime mortgage crisis was a nationwide banking emergency that triggered the recession of 2008, through subprime mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures, resulting in the devaluation of the attendant securities.

These mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO) initially offered attractive rates of return due to the higher interest rates on the mortgages; however, the lower credit quality ultimately caused massive defaults.[1] While elements of the crisis first became more visible during 2007, several major financial institutions collapsed in September 2008, with significant disruption in the flow of credit to businesses and consumers and the onset of a severe global recession.[2]

Click to expand...

So to reduce everyone down to the lowest, dumbest denominator is what Warren has done, and because the regulatory burden is simply too cumbersome and too expensive for most of the 6800 or so small banks, they will likely go out of the residential lending business altogether, will become easy prey for large banks, or will have to pay enormous fines for not following the CFPB system. Credit will dry up, and homebuyers will suffer.

Click to expand...

Let me know if I lose you.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: A Warrior for Small Community Banks and Credit Unions | Occupy Democrats

Community banks represent roughly 95% of all banking organizations, as of 2011. However, they only represent approximately 14% of banking assets in America. at the same time, community banks hold 46% of all small loans to businesses, according to a study done by Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC).

Senator Warren has been a supporter of community banks and credit unions since the 1990s. “A rule that can be facially neutral can end up slamming community banks, and that’s part of what I worry about,” Warren said in an interview, adding that her interest in small banks dates to the 1990s. “I became increasingly concerned about the business model of the largest financial institutions — too many of them built their profit model around tricking their customers. Community banks didn’t do that. So right from the beginning I saw the key differences among their practices.”

Click to expand...

...

“On my first day of work helping set up the new consumer agency, I met with community bankers from Oklahoma. We talked about a lot of things — three of us had gone to the same high school, and many of their banks were located in towns where I still have family. But the most engaging part of our conversation was about how the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could become a strong partner with community banks.

Click to expand...

...

One Ohio banker forcefully explained that his bank didn’t believe in pricing tricks, but that he had to compete with lenders who do — and who sell products that often appear to be cheaper. From his perspective, real competition in the credit market is less about who makes the best product and more about who can hide costs from the customer until it is too late.

For more than a decade, the number of small banks has shrunk. Consolidation has thinned their ranks, and some have failed outright. The result is less diversity — fewer firms and fewer differences in the approaches used in the financial services sector.

The bankers I have talked with are not looking to Washington to solve their problems. But they are looking for a market that allows them to compete. They are looking for a regulatory structure that doesn’t require an army of lawyers, and a level playing field that lets customers see the true cost of a product — so lenders do not need to compete against a phantom price.

Click to expand...

...

Supporting community banks and credit unions over larger institutions is a way to send a message that you side with small businesses. And it is helping to positively shape the view of Senator Warren in the banking industry, Massachusetts, and across the country.

According to Brian Gardner, an analyst with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, “It’s a way for her to rebut the argument that she’s anti-banking industry, because her retort is, ‘no, I’m not anti-banking, I’m pro-small business,’ and that’s a very smart place to be politically.”

Further, the leaders in the community banks and credit unions have a very positive attitude towards Senator Warren.

Click to expand...

Whew! Thanks for making me research this more, tres borrachos. Now I can promote Warren like a boss.

By the way - you keep mentioning economics. I'm not an economist. This is about banking regulations, not the economy.

Click to expand...

Regulating banks is ultimately about what's good for the economy.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Amadeus said:

Who would you rather have as president?

Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton without a doubt. I'm a reliable Republican voter but if we made the mistake of nominating someone like Cruz or Perry I'd at least entertain the possibility of voting for her instead of not voting. If it was Warren I'd be frightened enough to possibly hold my nose and vote for any candidate the GOP fielded. Warren frightens me. I think Hillary Clinton isn't close to my ideal but I think she's competent, intelligent, and has more of a practical bent than she usually gets credit for from people.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

I'd take Clinton. At least she has experience.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Amadeus said:

Yeah, I looked it up. It requires that lenders verify a borrower's ability to repay loans, so that banks don't get into a habit of 'risky lending' (aka predatory lending).



That's a fair argument.



From good ol' Wikipedia:





Let me know if I lose you.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: A Warrior for Small Community Banks and Credit Unions | Occupy Democrats



...



...



...



Whew! Thanks for making me research this more, tres borrachos. Now I can promote Warren like a boss.



Regulating banks is ultimately about what's good for the economy.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but "Occupy Democrats" isn't a non-partisan, fact based source. And by the way, "risky lending" and Warren's definition of "predatory lending" are not the same thing.

I won't waste my time continuing this discussion with someone who isn't serious. Have a good day.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

Sorry, but "Occupy Democrats" isn't a non-partisan, fact based source.

Click to expand...

Attacking the source is a logical fallacy. But it's a great way to shut down a discussion! Well done.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Amadeus said:

Who would you rather have as president?

Click to expand...

That's like asking if you want brain cancer or Lou Gehrig's disease

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

polgara said:

How exciting! That's not something most people get to do! Have a great time, Pero. :thumbs:

Click to expand...

Thanks Pol, Just got home and will be heading out in the morning. So Good night my friend, it is like having a bit of Thailand and Laos right here in the good ole USA when you go to the Wat.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

Well, even though we aren't specifically discussing this, here is something quick and very simplified (it is very complex). There is something she was behind called QM/ATR. It's a result of the people who foolishly overextended themselves on their mortgages. QM/ATR severely limits a bank's ability to make a 1-4 family first mortgage loan to consumers. So as time goes on, credit will be more and more scarce, and you will see cries of "we can't get a home loan anymore from our bank/credit union", and the small banks and credit unions will look like the bad guys. There is a very little percentage of Americans who are too dumb to make smart decisions, so Warren, believing that all Americans are too dumb to make smart decisions, have put processes in place in the banks that make it so that there are guidelines to determine what is a good loan versus what is a bad loan. Most Americans didn't get themselves into trouble with overextension and signing contracts for loans they had no chance of repaying. So to reduce everyone down to the lowest, dumbest denominator is what Warren has done, and because the regulatory burden is simply too cumbersome and too expensive for most of the 6800 or so small banks, they will likely go out of the residential lending business altogether, will become easy prey for large banks, or will have to pay enormous fines for not following the CFPB system. Credit will dry up, and homebuyers will suffer.

That is one very small and very oversimplified example.

By the way - you keep mentioning economics. I'm not an economist. This is about banking regulations, not the economy.

Click to expand...

Yeah, people aren't "There is a very little percentage of Americans who are too dumb to make smart decisions" THAT'S why household debt doubled under Bush while wages were stagnant

WHICH party in the transaction has the responsibility to have credit underwriting standards and to write the checks again during Bush's subprime crisis?

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

I hope Sarah Palin runs and wins in '16.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

I don't have the time nor the interest in educating you on banking or the banking regulations. Too long and involved. Can't you Google and do some research? You may want to if you're seriously championing Warren. Do you always champion a politician's actions and views on something that - by your own admission here - you know little about?

I'm not the economy, and never claimed to be so I'm not sure why you blurted that out? You said that banks were riding roughshod over the economy. I'm part of the economy, and they never rode roughshod over me. So I'll ask you again...how did they ride roughshod over you?

Click to expand...

Banks used cheap capital to create a bubble. Their lending strategies fueled and fed off the housing bubble, and they did so using mortgage products whose performance was premised on continued growth of that bubble.

Indeed, at its peak in 2003, the financial sector was generating 40% of the profits in the American economy with around 10% of the labor force (Fligstein and Shin, 2007; Krippner 2010)



These profits were mostly being made from businesses centering on and related to the selling of mortgages and the creation of various forms of mortgage backed securities and related financial products.


The mortgage business, at its peak in 2003 , represented a $4 trillion industry, about 25% of the American economy. Beginning in late 2006 and early 2007 , the financial sector fell apart

http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf
.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

SCitizen said:

I hope Sarah Palin runs and wins in '16.

Click to expand...

Yeah, when pigs fly

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

votemout said:

The banks are still paying off the clintons for what they have done for them. all of this economic destruction is because of clinton. You need to research more, Because you do not seem to have a grasp of what is really going on in this country and the world.

week before khadafi went down the rebels created a central bank! what do rebels know about central banking? Nothing but now you know why he is dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN0Y3HRiuxo

All wars are bankers wars

I have posted the above documentary here many times still amazes me how some either wont watch it or believe this nice history lesson.

Click to expand...

CLINTON? lol

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

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

votemout said:

Actually deregulation thanks to the Clinton clan of criminals. whom i did vote for twice then I saw what he policies did, thats was when i really started digging into what is going on.

Click to expand...

What are you talkling about?

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

There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that “there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”

As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in

Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


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


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.


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime


Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times


Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

The SEC Rule That Broke Wall Street


une 17, 2004

(CNN/Money) - 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



Lower lending standards started in late 2004 which caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble


"(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://business.gwu.edu/creua/research-papers/files/fannie-freddie.pdf


The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.

William K. Black: The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

What is your level of knowledge of bank regulations? If it's deep, we can discuss.

No banks rode roughshod over me. What did you allow banks to do to you?

Click to expand...

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime


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/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

Happy Saturday Pol!

The CFPB, along with Dodd-Frank, has constrained the lenders in this country, and the regulatory changes coming down the pike are so burdensome that credit will be less and less available, particularly mortgages but other credit as well. So innocent people will ultimately be hurt because Elizabeth Warren is one of those politicians who stupidly relieved consumers of all of their responsibility and she put the blame squarely on the lenders, so in order to protect the morons who can't take care of themselves, everyone will now be victimized by the CFPB.

Warren IMO would be very dangerous for this country. She thinks people are too stupid to make smart decisions, and she believes that the government should make decisions for people. It's downright frightening.

Not that I'd vote for either one, but if I was forced to choose between Warren & Clinton, I would choose Clinton without hesitation.

Click to expand...

Yeah, we heard before 1929, Reagan's S&L crisis and Bush subprime meltdown, banks could watch out best for themselves *shaking head*

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



DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

I voted for Hillary, but to be honest I really don't know enough about Elizabeth Warren at this point to make an informed judgment.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Amadeus said:

Many people are afraid, even terrified, of Elizabeth Warren. No one is afraid of Clinton.

Click to expand...

**** I love this woman.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

The only problem is her CFPB is going to end up hurting the average American joe more than help him. It won't be long before consumer credit is unattainable for a good portion if not most Americans. Yes I'm going out on a limb and predicting that now.

Click to expand...

That is her brainchild, I believe. And she's not in charge, even though she originally wanted the appointment, I believe. In any event, you (or I) don't know how it will pan out, but we both know that it was created and put in place to help Americans.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

I don't have the time nor the interest in educating you on banking or the banking regulations. Too long and involved. Can't you Google and do some research? You may want to if you're seriously championing Warren. Do you always champion a politician's actions and views on something that - by your own admission here - you know little about?

I'm not the economy, and never claimed to be so I'm not sure why you blurted that out? You said that banks were riding roughshod over the economy. I'm part of the economy, and they never rode roughshod over me. So I'll ask you again...how did they ride roughshod over you?

Click to expand...

What about the people who lost their shirts in 2008? Just because it didn't directly affect you does not mean it didn't happen.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

tres borrachos said:

No, you came up with a Wiki page about the meltdown in 2007. A few problems:

Wiki isn't a source.
I wasn't talking about the big bank problems in 2007. I was talking about the CFPB, banking regulations, and their impact on the community bank space.

Click to expand...

So you're saying that banking regulation hurts the little banks? In the same token regulations help the big ones?

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Warren, all day. She's my top pick for President out of anybody.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

SCitizen said:

I hope Sarah Palin runs and wins in '16.

Click to expand...

I don't.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

dad2three2001 said:

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime


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/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

Click to expand...

The thread is about Elizabeth Warren & Hillary Clinton, not the housing bubble. You quoted me but I'm not posting about the housing bubble. Thanks.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Middleground said:

That is her brainchild, I believe. And she's not in charge, even though she originally wanted the appointment, I believe. In any event, you (or I) don't know how it will pan out, but we both know that it was created and put in place to help Americans.

Click to expand...

It is her brainchild, which is why I called it "her" CFPB and yes, I know she isn't in charge of it (never said she was).

I don't know how it will pan out. I only know how I think it will pan out. It was intended to help Americans, and in the end, IMO, it will hurt Americans. That's what I've been posting.

Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Middleground said:

What about the people who lost their shirts in 2008? Just because it didn't directly affect you does not mean it didn't happen.

Click to expand...

Not sure why you posted this, MG. I never said the meltdown didn't affect me. It affected everyone with investments & a 401K. That has nothing to do with my post, which was asking the other poster how banks "rode roughshod" over him.