• 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

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

Regulations don't hurt they big banks they way they are hurting the small banks. The small banks don't have the staff to manage the cost of regulations, which is why so many of them are being swallowed up by the larger banks now. That's what I've been posting about.

The more smaller banks that close, the harder it's going to be for consumers to get credit, and the more powerful the larger banks are going to get.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

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.

That's fine. But your opinion is not fact.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Elizabeth Warren is trying to protect community banks. Part of the reason community banks are shrinking is because they have to compete with the unregulated practices of mammoth banks.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Regulations don't hurt they big banks they way they are hurting the small banks. The small banks don't have the staff to manage the cost of regulations, which is why so many of them are being swallowed up by the larger banks now. That's what I've been posting about.

The more smaller banks that close, the harder it's going to be for consumers to get credit, and the more powerful the larger banks are going to get.

Banks were heavily regulated for about 50 years. The smaller banks did well. So why would it be different now?
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

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

large banking operations often welcome complex regulation because large institutions are more likely to have the resources to cope with these challenges better than smaller entities.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Elizabeth Warren is trying to protect community banks. Part of the reason community banks are shrinking is because they have to compete with the unregulated practices of mammoth banks.

that's crap. what unregulated practices " of Mammoth banks hurt small banks. In an extremely regulated market big banks are going to have even more advantages over small local ones
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Banks were heavily regulated for about 50 years. The smaller banks did well. So why would it be different now?

The smaller banks did well? Really?

In the mid-1980s there were almost 18,000 community banks. Now there are less than 7000 and that number gets smaller every day. There have only been a handful of new community banks opened in the last 6 years or so.

The regulatory climate also looks nothing today like it did 25 year ago, or even 10 years ago. Small banks are closing at an alarming rate and have been for the last few years.

With all due respect, you should do some research on the banking industry.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

that's crap. what unregulated practices " of Mammoth banks hurt small banks. In an extremely regulated market big banks are going to have even more advantages over small local ones

It's already been explained in this thread. I'll quote a previous post.

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.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

that's crap. what unregulated practices " of Mammoth banks hurt small banks. In an extremely regulated market big banks are going to have even more advantages over small local ones

The "mammoth banks" are enjoying the benefits of the new regulatory environment, which is why they are getting bigger and more powerful, and the smaller ones (the community banks) are withering on the vine.

The CFPB is going to kill off the small banks, leaving only the large and super-regional banks standing. People who think that's going to help consumers are very sadly mistaken and terribly uninformed.

The big banks love Warren.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

It's already been explained in this thread. I'll quote a previous post.

that doesn't establish your point. it looks like you want more regulation and the small bankers do not


My father was a director for several decades of a bank that now is a Fortune 500 establishment. The consolidation of banking is market driven
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

The "mammoth banks" are enjoying the benefits of the new regulatory environment, which is why they are getting bigger and more powerful, and the smaller ones (the community banks) are withering on the vine.

The CFPB is going to kill off the small banks, leaving only the large and super-regional banks standing. People who think that's going to help consumers are very sadly mistaken and terribly uninformed.

The big banks love Warren.

Lieyawatha is a whore for crony capitalism
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Number of U.S. banks drops to record low

By/Constantine von Hoffman/MoneyWatch/December 4, 2013, 4:11 PM/
Number of U.S. banks drops to record low

The number of banks in the U.S. has fallen to a record low this year, with most of the closed institutions consisting of community lenders. With profits harder to come by in financial services and bankers complaining about the burdens of increased regulation, more small lenders are expected to close. This could take a toll on small businesses, which rely on these banks as their primary source of funds.

According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the number of federally insured financial institutions fell to to 6,891 as of the end of September. That’s the lowest it has been since 1934, when federal regulators began tracking the number. In the past 30 years, more than 10,000 banks have closed because of mergers, consolidations or failures. The overwhelming majority of those closures were small banks, or those with less than $100 million in assets.

“Small banks are the most important source of loans for small businesses,” said Rohit Arora, CEO of Biz2Credit, which matches up businesses and lenders. Research by the company shows that since the end of the recession, small banks have approved three to four times more small business loans every month than big banks have.

Small banks make their money from what many think of as traditional banking -- the spread between the interest they pay to depositors and the interest borrowers pay for loans. However, the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy since the 2008 financial crisis of keeping interest near zero has cut that difference paper-thin.



Here is the magic paragraph:

Banks big and small also face higher costs to comply with regulations passed under the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Some banks have had to quadruple the number of staff dedicated to dealing with these and other regulations, like those requiring increased security to ward off cyber-attacks. Such costs are much easier for large banks, like Citibank (C) or Bank of America (BAC), to absorb.



Number of U.S. banks drops to record low - CBS News
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

that doesn't establish your point. it looks like you want more regulation and the small bankers do not

It does address my point. Smaller banks do not generally engage in the practices of larger banks (predatory lending), but have to compete with them anyway. Thus, it's not a level playing field. So they end up losing business.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

that doesn't establish your point. it looks like you want more regulation and the small bankers do not


My father was a director for several decades of a bank that now is a Fortune 500 establishment. The consolidation of banking is market driven

From my link from CBS News:

since the end of the recession, small banks have approved three to four times more small business loans every month than big banks have.



People who don't understand that the smaller (community) banks are the ones who are helping small business and also consumers as opposed to the large banks have no idea what Warren's "consumer protection" is going to do to this country.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

It does address my point. Smaller banks do not generally engage in the practices of larger banks (predatory lending), but have to compete with them anyway. Thus, it's not a level playing field. So they end up losing business.


small entities are generally always at a competitive disadvantage to larger entities if they are trying to supply the same services.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Geez no 'none of the above' option. :(

But at the risk of rudely butting into a banking discussion in the midst of a Warren vs Clinton thread. . . .

For me choosing between Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton is choosing between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, choosing between Folgers and Maxwell House, looking for a unique toothpick in the box, and, I might as well say it because I'm thinking it, choosing between dumb and dumber or liar vs bigger liar.

Evenso, probably either one of them would make a better president than the current occupant in the White House.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Lieyawatha is a whore for crony capitalism

Warren is the darling of the big banks. She will damage the banking system in this country irreperably. But people apparently don't care. Meh.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Warren is the darling of the big banks. She will damage the banking system in this country irreperably. But people apparently don't care. Meh.

lots of people will side with an asshole if they think that the asshole is going to stick it to the perceived causes of their problems. Lots of people are losers and blame losing on banks or corporations. Most of them aren't smart enough to figure out that someone like Lieyawatha and her anti corporate rhetoric is not based on a desire to help the failures and the unlucky. Rather, like most rich lefties, she merely panders to the envy of suc people in order to gain more wealth and power herself
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

small entities are generally always at a competitive disadvantage to larger entities if they are trying to supply the same services.

They are not supplying the same service.

HowStuffWorks "What is Predatory Lending?"

Predatory lenders will use all kinds of pressure tactics to convince a homebuyer to sign. They might tell a borrower that this is his or her only chance to get a mortgage, that there's no one else in town who will give the buyer such a good deal, and that it will be gone tomorrow.

Sometimes a mortgage broker will collude with a certain mortgage lender and get a kickback if the victim signs a mortgage with an inflated interest rate. Or two lenders will run a bait-and-switch operation in which one lender baits a borrower with a highly attractive mortgage offer, but says it fell through at the last second. The second lender calls the same day with a less attractive offer, but capitalizes on the borrower's excitement to buy the house.

Sometimes a predatory lender will convince a homeowner to refinance his or her mortgage without any real financial benefit to the customer [source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development]. The goal for the lender is to trick the homeowner into refinancing for a higher interest rate, or simply to collect any fees associated with the transaction. That's called flipping a loan.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

lots of people will side with an asshole if they think that the asshole is going to stick it to the perceived causes of their problems. Lots of people are losers and blame losing on banks or corporations. Most of them aren't smart enough to figure out that someone like Lieyawatha and her anti corporate rhetoric is not based on a desire to help the failures and the unlucky. Rather, like most rich lefties, she merely panders to the envy of suc people in order to gain more wealth and power herself

Agree 1000%.

Her message of "consumer protection" resonates with people. In my real life, I've had discussions with people who think every banker is out to get them. I've actually had people complain about banks charging them when they overdraw their checking accounts and cheer about Warren trying to prevent the banks (and I'm including the tiniest of community banks in this statement) from charging them for it. Can you imagine? You have $100 in your account, and you write a check for $350, and then you have the audacity to be pissed when your bank pays the check (sparing you the embarrassment of an overdraft) and then charges you $28 for it? Un****ingbelievable.

It's like her stance on the people who overextended themselves. She feels it is the fault of the lenders who were "predators". Yeah, they prayed on people's stupidity and greed :roll: If you make $50,000 a year, NO, you can't afford a $750,000 house, FFS. But with her message, it's everyone else's fault not the fault of the very irresponsible homeowner. That's Obama's message too. So she has put together these absurd rules that will hurt ALL consumers, not just the stupid and irresponsible ones. And it will and HAS hurt the small banks. In the end, NOBODY will win.

But they cheer her anyway, not having any clue at all of how dangerous her message is. But the big banks love her, so I guess the Warren champs love the big banks too. They just don't realize it...but they will, mark my words.
 
Last edited:
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Agree 1000%.

Her message of "consumer protection" resonates with people. In my real life, I've had discussions with people who think every banker is out to get them. I've actualy had people complain about banks charging them when they overdraw their checking accounts and cheer about Warren trying to prevent the banks (and I'm including the tiniest of community banks in this statement) from charging them for it. Can you imagine? You have $100 in your account, and you write a check for $350, and then you have the audacity to be pissed when your bank pays the check (sparing you the embarrassment of an overdraft) and then charges you $28 for it? Un****ingbelievable.

It's like her stance on the people who overextended themselves. She feels it is the fault of the lenders who were "predators". Yeah, they prayed on people's stupidity and greed :roll: If you make $50,000 a year, NO, you can't afford a $750,000 house, FFS. But with her message, it's everyone else's fault not the fault of the very irresponsible homeowner. That's Obama's message too. So she has put together these absurd rules that will hurt ALL consumers, not just the stupid and irresponsible ones. And it will and HAS hurt the small banks. In the end, NOBODY will win.

But they cheer her anyway, not having any clue at all of how dangerous her message is. But the big banks love her, so I guess the Warren champs love the big banks too. They just don't realize it...but they will, mark my words.

Lieyawatha appeals to people who want to blame their own failures on others
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Lieyawatha appeals to people who want to blame their own failures on others

It's apparently a message that sells. Sad, that.

If you ****ed up, it's on you, not on the bank. The people who made stupid mistakes own their mistakes, and nobody else should be responsible.

There is an unbelievable lack of education on Warren's consumer protection message. That scares me. It isn't good for this country.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Number of U.S. banks drops to record low

By/Constantine von Hoffman/MoneyWatch/December 4, 2013, 4:11 PM/
Number of U.S. banks drops to record low

The number of banks in the U.S. has fallen to a record low this year, with most of the closed institutions consisting of community lenders. With profits harder to come by in financial services and bankers complaining about the burdens of increased regulation, more small lenders are expected to close. This could take a toll on small businesses, which rely on these banks as their primary source of funds.

According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the number of federally insured financial institutions fell to to 6,891 as of the end of September. That’s the lowest it has been since 1934, when federal regulators began tracking the number. In the past 30 years, more than 10,000 banks have closed because of mergers, consolidations or failures. The overwhelming majority of those closures were small banks, or those with less than $100 million in assets.

“Small banks are the most important source of loans for small businesses,” said Rohit Arora, CEO of Biz2Credit, which matches up businesses and lenders. Research by the company shows that since the end of the recession, small banks have approved three to four times more small business loans every month than big banks have.

Small banks make their money from what many think of as traditional banking -- the spread between the interest they pay to depositors and the interest borrowers pay for loans. However, the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy since the 2008 financial crisis of keeping interest near zero has cut that difference paper-thin.



Here is the magic paragraph:

Banks big and small also face higher costs to comply with regulations passed under the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Some banks have had to quadruple the number of staff dedicated to dealing with these and other regulations, like those requiring increased security to ward off cyber-attacks. Such costs are much easier for large banks, like Citibank (C) or Bank of America (BAC), to absorb.



Number of U.S. banks drops to record low - CBS News

A drop that began with deregulation in the 80's, as it would happen. It's kind of hard to swallow the idea that regulation will hurt independent banks when their free fall happened at the same exact time as deregulation.
 
Back
Top Bottom