• 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


This is what I found from one of your links that addresses CFPB: Similarly, the CFPB created a sensible, limited exemption from the “qualified mortgage,” or “QM,” rule for portfolio mortgages by community banks and credit unions with less than $2 billion in assets that make fewer than 500 first-lien mortgages a year. If a community bank assumes all of the risk of default, then there will be strong incentive to decide correctly if the borrower has the ability to repay without a debt-to-income requirement.

The Dodd-Frank Act was the most significant set of financial reforms since the New Deal. Many of the provisions are aimed at large, complex, systemically important financial institutions, and will not affect community banks at all. Other provisions will affect community banks. A GAO study last fall concluded that some provisions will help community banks, such as the supervision by the CFPB of certain nonbank lenders that competed unfairly with responsible community banks in the past, and changes to the calculation of deposit insurance premiums. Other provisions will inevitably result in some compliance costs for community banks, the GAO found, but how much will depend on the implementing regulations. Regulators should certainly make sensible exceptions, like the CFPB’s exception from the QM rule for some portfolio mortgages by community banks. The regulators should also recognize, however, that a patchwork of different rules for different lenders will inevitably be confusing to consumers, and is contrary to the intent that some rules should apply to all lenders.

Other provisions should apply equally to community banks. Community bank lending may be more “relationship lending” than lending by bigger banks, but no one walks into a community bank with a legal pad or a laptop and says “I need a loan. Do you want to be the party of the first part, or do you want me to be?” Community bank lending may be more tailored to the borrower, but no one’s lending is that tailored. All lenders use standard forms, and no lender’s standard forms should include predatory, equity-stripping provisions like what we saw in the last decade. Community banks were generally not guilty of some of the worst abuses of the last decade, and community banks remain more constrained by reputational concerns than are the biggest banks. But community bankers are not incapable of bad conduct. In the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life,” George Bailey was a community banker, but so was Mr. Potter.

There is litigation pending now against a New York community bank for mortgages the banks made to homeowners with lots of equity but problem credit. The mortgages had an interest rate that adjusted to almost 10 percent. If a homeowner was late with a payment, the rate went to 18 percent and stayed at 18 percent until the homeowner got completely caught up. Since an interest rate of 18 percent almost doubled the monthly payment, many homeowners found it hard to catch up. Almost half of the 5,000 homeowners who got the mortgages are losing their home.

The consolidation in the banking industry was not the result of onerous regulation of community banks, but of the deregulation of big banks by submissive politicians and regulators. More of the consolidation was the result of bigger banks buying smaller banks after interstate banking restrictions were relaxed than was the result of small bank failures.

Much of the advantage community banks have had in the past is their knowledge of local laws. The largest banks have succeeded in excusing themselves from many local or state laws they find inconvenient. Legislation introduced last week would exempt mortgages even from the requirements of state land title laws.

There are several ways Congress could help community banks compete with the biggest banks. For instance, Congress could limit ATM charges that are unrelated to the cost of transactions. Fees for using an ATM that is not your bank’s own may be $4 or $5, which is pretty stiff if you just need $40 in cash. ATM fees are unjustifiably profitable, and are a barrier for community banks in competing for customers. There’s a Bank of America cash machine just two blocks from here on Pennsylvania Avenue. Good luck with finding one for Prosperity Bank.

Most important, Congress should end the implicit subsidy for borrowing by too-big-to-fail banks. The ICBA has joined the chorus calling for ending too-big-to-fail because of the unfair competitive advantage too-big-to-fail banks have over community banks. Congress should pay attention.

So, I'm not seeing what you are saying about small community banks getting hurt more than big banks.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Yes, You know how to read. And why would Dems be at fault? They have ANY power in the Executive branch? HUD, F/F, FBI, SEC, etc?

because they vote like everyone else, they are on committees even they they dont seat at it leadership position.

they are part of government.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

You'll have to explain what you're attempting to say here.
There is nothing that isn't political about Hillary Clinton. In today's political environment, she's as populist as anyone.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

so tell me, how does clinton get good marks for his presidency, with a republican congress for the first time in 40 years for his 8 years, and reagan gets bad marks when he had a democrat house for his 8 years?

So you don't understand

"Clinton had a surplus, then the GOP passed a $700+ billion tax cut after his first surplus, which Clinton vetoed to get 3 more. See logic would dictate credit goes to Clinton"

Reagan, Hmm the guy who 'starved the beast' with his tax cuts to the rich, tripled US debt, cut and ran from terrorists after funding them, and had the most corrupt admin in 100+ years?


AGAIN, Despite GOP passing a $700+ billion tax cut which would have wiped out the 3 following surpluses, Clinton vetoed it. To get to the situation, Clinton had a GOP Congress his LAST 6 years, his first 2 he had Dem, that's how they set the tone fort the surpluses

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote.

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994


"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997

Yes, Dems the opposing party DID work with Reagan, to bad the opposing party will NOT work with Obama! The CONservatives/GOP has become SOOOOOO extreme the past 20 years. It's pathetic people can't see it!
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

because they vote like everyone else, they are on committees even they they dont seat at it leadership position.

they are part of government.

Yeah, Let Nancy and the Dems note that AFTER the GOP had 40+ votes to repeal Obamacares. LOTS of power in the House for the minority/ *shaking head*
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Yeah, Let Nancy and the Dems note that AFTER the GOP had 40+ votes to repeal Obamacares. LOTS of power in the House for the minority/ *shaking head*

you see, you cant stop showing your partisanship..


the republicans are destroying america

the democrats are saving america......now dont you think this a somewhat stupid?
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

This is what I found from one of your links that addresses CFPB: Similarly, the CFPB created a sensible, limited exemption from the “qualified mortgage,” or “QM,” rule for portfolio mortgages by community banks and credit unions with less than $2 billion in assets that make fewer than 500 first-lien mortgages a year. If a community bank assumes all of the risk of default, then there will be strong incentive to decide correctly if the borrower has the ability to repay without a debt-to-income requirement.

The Dodd-Frank Act was the most significant set of financial reforms since the New Deal. Many of the provisions are aimed at large, complex, systemically important financial institutions, and will not affect community banks at all. Other provisions will affect community banks. A GAO study last fall concluded that some provisions will help community banks, such as the supervision by the CFPB of certain nonbank lenders that competed unfairly with responsible community banks in the past, and changes to the calculation of deposit insurance premiums. Other provisions will inevitably result in some compliance costs for community banks, the GAO found, but how much will depend on the implementing regulations. Regulators should certainly make sensible exceptions, like the CFPB’s exception from the QM rule for some portfolio mortgages by community banks. The regulators should also recognize, however, that a patchwork of different rules for different lenders will inevitably be confusing to consumers, and is contrary to the intent that some rules should apply to all lenders.

Other provisions should apply equally to community banks. Community bank lending may be more “relationship lending” than lending by bigger banks, but no one walks into a community bank with a legal pad or a laptop and says “I need a loan. Do you want to be the party of the first part, or do you want me to be?” Community bank lending may be more tailored to the borrower, but no one’s lending is that tailored. All lenders use standard forms, and no lender’s standard forms should include predatory, equity-stripping provisions like what we saw in the last decade. Community banks were generally not guilty of some of the worst abuses of the last decade, and community banks remain more constrained by reputational concerns than are the biggest banks. But community bankers are not incapable of bad conduct. In the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life,” George Bailey was a community banker, but so was Mr. Potter.

There is litigation pending now against a New York community bank for mortgages the banks made to homeowners with lots of equity but problem credit. The mortgages had an interest rate that adjusted to almost 10 percent. If a homeowner was late with a payment, the rate went to 18 percent and stayed at 18 percent until the homeowner got completely caught up. Since an interest rate of 18 percent almost doubled the monthly payment, many homeowners found it hard to catch up. Almost half of the 5,000 homeowners who got the mortgages are losing their home.

The consolidation in the banking industry was not the result of onerous regulation of community banks, but of the deregulation of big banks by submissive politicians and regulators. More of the consolidation was the result of bigger banks buying smaller banks after interstate banking restrictions were relaxed than was the result of small bank failures.

Much of the advantage community banks have had in the past is their knowledge of local laws. The largest banks have succeeded in excusing themselves from many local or state laws they find inconvenient. Legislation introduced last week would exempt mortgages even from the requirements of state land title laws.

There are several ways Congress could help community banks compete with the biggest banks. For instance, Congress could limit ATM charges that are unrelated to the cost of transactions. Fees for using an ATM that is not your bank’s own may be $4 or $5, which is pretty stiff if you just need $40 in cash. ATM fees are unjustifiably profitable, and are a barrier for community banks in competing for customers. There’s a Bank of America cash machine just two blocks from here on Pennsylvania Avenue. Good luck with finding one for Prosperity Bank.

Most important, Congress should end the implicit subsidy for borrowing by too-big-to-fail banks. The ICBA has joined the chorus calling for ending too-big-to-fail because of the unfair competitive advantage too-big-to-fail banks have over community banks. Congress should pay attention.

So, I'm not seeing what you are saying about small community banks getting hurt more than big banks.

Thank you for taking the time to read the links. But I have no idea where that information came from. Which link, and is it all from a link?

I know all about QM, as I've posted about it in this thread a lot. QM earned me a very expensive trip to Jamaica last month with my husband, paid for by the bonus I earned for some large engagements with banks preparing for QM/ATR on January 10, and also for some work with software platforms in support of QM/ATR.

I've posted many times why the small banks are under strain. There are many regulations and very expensive costs being passed on to the banks, and they need to add staff. It's not just QM but many regulations, some of which are in place, many others coming.

The big banks caused problems. The little banks are paying for the problems they didn't cause. It's a very complicated thing and I've merely posted my opinion. I can't convince others to agree with me nor do I want to try.

Not sure what that ATM stuff in the post was about. Most community banks issue cards to their customers. You live in MA. I can assure you there isn't a community bank in MA that doesn't issue cards to their account owners, and banks have to pay a very large fee to be in the ATM business, both as card issuers and ATM owners. ATM services cost banks money - and they pass the cost on to you.

Big banks will prevail, small banks will be hurt, and consumers will have to bank with the big banks if things go the direction that I see them going in. That's why I don't hold Elizabeth Warren in any high esteem. Time will tell if I'm right - and I am hardly alone in the way I see the damage her ideas will do.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Moderator's Warning:
ernst barkmann and dad2three2001 are thread banned. Do not bring forward and quote off-topic posts.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Thank you for taking the time to read the links. But I have no idea where that information came from. Which link, and is it all from a link?

I know all about QM, as I've posted about it in this thread a lot. QM earned me a very expensive trip to Jamaica last month with my husband, paid for by the bonus I earned for some large engagements with banks preparing for QM/ATR on January 10, and also for some work with software platforms in support of QM/ATR.

I've posted many times why the small banks are under strain. There are many regulations and very expensive costs being passed on to the banks, and they need to add staff. It's not just QM but many regulations, some of which are in place, many others coming.

The big banks caused problems. The little banks are paying for the problems they didn't cause. It's a very complicated thing and I've merely posted my opinion. I can't convince others to agree with me nor do I want to try.

Not sure what that ATM stuff in the post was about. Most community banks issue cards to their customers. You live in MA. I can assure you there isn't a community bank in MA that doesn't issue cards to their account owners, and banks have to pay a very large fee to be in the ATM business, both as card issuers and ATM owners. ATM services cost banks money - and they pass the cost on to you.

Big banks will prevail, small banks will be hurt, and consumers will have to bank with the big banks if things go the direction that I see them going in. That's why I don't hold Elizabeth Warren in any high esteem. Time will tell if I'm right - and I am hardly alone in the way I see the damage her ideas will do.

It was from your link: Regulatory Burdens: The Impact of Dodd-Frank on Community Banking | Center for American Progress
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Neither if John Huntsman or someone similar were to be the GOP nominee. If not, then Hillary. I could never vote for Warren. Never.

I like Huntsman. But today in the GOP he is a Democrat.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

I like Huntsman. But today in the GOP he is a Democrat.

To the co-opted Tea Party, yes, that's the way they see him. But to the majority of the GOP, those like me, he's a Goldwater Republican, and those like him are the only future of the party that will allow us to survive as a voice and power in the government of this country.

The original Tea Party still exists on a local level, and focus only on fiscal responsibility. It's the "national" type Tea Partiers that are being co-opted by the extremists, that have brought social issues and religious fanaticism into the mix.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

I like Huntsman. But today in the GOP he is a Democrat.

I like Huntsman, also. I probably would have voted for him over Obama (assuming I as an American).
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

It was from your link: Regulatory Burdens: The Impact of Dodd-Frank on Community Banking | Center for American Progress

Ah, I see. Out of all of the links, you only focused on the one that was a testimony from a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, which is of course a Progressive group that promotes Progressive ideas and candidates. Miller, who testified, is a politician who was instrumental in the creation of the CFPB and who shares Warren's views that homeowners who made stupid decisions did so because they were victims of the banks. Miller, as we all know, is not impartial.

Keep in mind my post when I gave you those links:

I'll ask again. Do you know what the CFPB is? Do you know what Dodd-Frank is, and how it interacts with the CFPB which is the agency that will enforce DF?

Okay, here's a link for you since you don't want to do research yourself. I posted a great link from CBS News a few pages back. Here are some more for you.



Those links were to help you understand what the CFPB is, and how Dodd-Frank relies on the CFPB to enforce the law. I'm not a partisan so I provide links from all points of view, from experts to bankers to both leans. You only honed in on the one from the ultra, ultra left lean, the man who was part of the creation of the CFPB.

Got it.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

To the co-opted Tea Party, yes, that's the way they see him. But to the majority of the GOP, those like me, he's a Goldwater Republican, and those like him are the only future of the party that will allow us to survive as a voice and power in the government of this country.

The original Tea Party still exists on a local level, and focus only on fiscal responsibility. It's the "national" type Tea Partiers that are being co-opted by the extremists, that have brought social issues and religious fanaticism into the mix.

Amen! In fact he's the only real Goldwater Republican I can see anywhere on the horizon.

He ran a bad campaign in 2012 here in NH. Had he run a good one, I think he would have had a chance. He can appeal to moderates and conservatives alike. He's much better than Christie, Paul, Cruz or any of the ones we hear about today. I wish Huntsman would run again. Maybe he will?
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Amen! In fact he's the only real Goldwater Republican I can see anywhere on the horizon.

He ran a bad campaign in 2012 here in NH. Had he run a good one, I think he would have had a chance. He can appeal to moderates and conservatives alike. He's much better than Christie, Paul, Cruz or any of the ones we hear about today. I wish Huntsman would run again. Maybe he will?

The party didn't support him. He was an outlier from the beginning. I hear he may be considering another run. If he does, I'll campaign like hell for him this time around.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

I hope I never have to make this decision. A decision which to have sex with would be so much easier. I suppose either way the results would be the same.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

The party didn't support him. He was an outlier from the beginning. I hear he may be considering another run. If he does, I'll campaign like hell for him this time around.

I did some campaigning here for him (in NH, it matters big time of course) but noticed he was just never getting traction. Part of that I think is that a lot of NH Republicans decided that it was Romney's time, and also believed that Romney was the only one who could beat Obama.

Huntsman is a good man. I had the privilege of meeting him many times and I like him, personally and politically.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

To the co-opted Tea Party, yes, that's the way they see him. But to the majority of the GOP, those like me, he's a Goldwater Republican, and those like him are the only future of the party that will allow us to survive as a voice and power in the government of this country.

The original Tea Party still exists on a local level, and focus only on fiscal responsibility. It's the "national" type Tea Partiers that are being co-opted by the extremists, that have brought social issues and religious fanaticism into the mix.

I've seen "tea partyish" activities in my community/region, but I've yet to meet anybody who's a member of any national "Tea Party" or read letters to the editor either.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Everything looks good when you're not making any of the sacrifices.

And what sacrifices has this President or his administration made?
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

I've seen "tea partyish" activities in my community/region, but I've yet to meet anybody who's a member of any national "Tea Party" or read letters to the editor either.

I'm talking about the Tea Party talking heads that get on TV or are interviewed by other national media. It's kinda like when something happens in my county, the local news finds the guy with no teeth, no shirt and with his beer gut hanging out, with a little kid running around him with nothing on but a poo filled diaper, to interview about what he thinks.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

You posted a link to the ICBA site, bubba. I didn't bring up the ICBA. You did. Not sure why, except you were trying to save Cardinal who used the words "independent bank" in his first post, then refused to explain what he meant. I'm guessing you googled "independent bank" and that's how you found the ICBA link.

Community bankers work for community banks. I have no idea what an "independent community banker is". Is that as opposed to a "dependent community banker"?

I've been away from the party for a while. Did you ever get around to explaining why the drop in the number of banks coincided with deregulation in the 80's? I remember asking you a bunch of times and never getting an answer. Just curious.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

I've been away from the party for a while. Did you ever get around to explaining why the drop in the number of banks coincided with deregulation in the 80's? I remember asking you a bunch of times and never getting an answer. Just curious.

Which reasons are you looking for? The reasons for the community banks that failed, or the reasons for the community banks that were acquired and/or merged? Both contributed to the drop in numbers and both had entirely different reasons.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Which reasons are you looking for? The reasons for the community banks that failed, or the reasons for the community banks that were acquired and/or merged?

Yes.

asdfj;l
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

Yes.

asdfj;l

Failures - many reasons, primarily economic factors which were wrapped around the markets they served. Oil & gas loans, agriculture loans, and real estate (consumer) loans defaulting at an alarmingly high rate.

Mergers & acquisitions - the removal of the interstate banking laws and the geographic limitations on branching enabled banks to move into new demographic areas, especially when a reciprocal agreement existed between states. Mergers also were common as small banks merged with other small banks both to increase shareholder value, even if the banks were cooperatives or mutuals.

Also new technologies were emerging in the 1980s, such as ETM, Loan Origination Systems, and core platforms replacing manual general ledgers, and the costs to implement were high; by merging, banks could share in those costs as the technologies were necessary in order for the banks to remain competitive.
 
Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton

I support Warren for President. Other than Bernie Sanders, I cannot think of a better candidate who has a chance of getting more than .5% of the vote. Glass-Steagall is a very important issue for me, and I can either vote for the person who supports reinstating it, or the wife of the president who repealed it. Clinton's position on Libya is also disheartening, and her hawkish foreign policy outlined in her novel is clearly an appeal to the military industrial complex.
 
Back
Top Bottom