On Mar. 21, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and a handful of lobbying titans are scheduled to host a fundraiser for the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraising account for the Clinton campaign, the DNC and 32 state parties. According to an invitation obtained by the Sunlight Foundation, Podesta’s co-hosts include Steve Elmendorf, Jeff Forbes and Susan Brophy — all of whom were government officials before becoming lobbyists at top D.C. firms. The event with Podesta — whose brother is a corporate lobbyist and fundraising bundler for Clinton — follows a recent fundraising blitz by Clinton in which her campaign raised money from financial, energy and other industries that expect to have business before the next president.
The DNC’s prohibition on lobbyist donations was instituted in 2008 at the behest of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, who told voters: “They will not fund my party.” Clinton’s current Democratic primary opponent, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, has pushed her to demand the DNC reinstate the lobbyist contribution ban. Clinton is already the top recipient of money from lobbyists in the 2016 campaign, the New York Times reported.
I'm pretty conservative...not a complete nut job...but I do lean that way. I was actually looking forward to Bernie kicking her ass. There's just something about that guy I really love. I don't agree with his positions per se nor do I believe we could afford them, but at least with him I felt you had no doubts as to where he stood, and his sincerity in the message he conveyed. He seems like a genuinely good guy, with good intentions. With Clinton...I just have this wicked witch vibe, like everything we see in public is a complete put on, a very uneasy feeling, I'm sure not too unlike many have for Cruz and Trump haha.
If anyone cares to read that entire article there is entirely too much of this throughout: all of whom were government officials before becoming lobbyists at top D.C. firms
Pentagon generals objected to destroying the Libyan state. They felt Hillary did not have a safe post-war plan. Hillary Clinton went over their heads. Libya has been destroyed. It became a haven for ISIS. The Libyan national armory was looted and hundreds of tons of weapons were transferred to jihadists in Syria. Hillary's war has increased terrorism, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and has set back women's rights in the Middle East by hundreds of years. Having learned nothing from the Libyan disaster Hillary then set about trying do the same in Syria.
Hillary publicly took credit for the destruction of the Libyan state. On hearing that the country's president had been killed by her handiwork, she became wild-eyed and gloated "We came, we saw, he died!". In the momentary thrill of the kill, she had aped, of all people, Julius Ceaser.
Hillary's problem is not just that she's war hawk. She's a war hawk with bad judgement who gets an unseemly emotional rush out of killing people. She shouldn't be let near a gun shop, let alone an army. And she certainly should not become president of the United States. From assange
Pentagon generals objected to destroying the Libyan state. They felt Hillary did not have a safe post-war plan. Hillary Clinton went over their heads. Libya has been destroyed. It became a haven for ISIS. The Libyan national armory was looted and hundreds of tons of weapons were transferred to jihadists in Syria. Hillary's war has increased terrorism, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and has set back women's rights in the Middle East by hundreds of years. Having learned nothing from the Libyan disaster Hillary then set about trying do the same in Syria.
Hillary publicly took credit for the destruction of the Libyan state. On hearing that the country's president had been killed by her handiwork, she became wild-eyed and gloated "We came, we saw, he died!". In the momentary thrill of the kill, she had aped, of all people, Julius Ceaser.
Hillary's problem is not just that she's war hawk. She's a war hawk with bad judgement who gets an unseemly emotional rush out of killing people. She shouldn't be let near a gun shop, let alone an army. And she certainly should not become president of the United States. From assange
The Secretary of State doesn't control the armed forces. That's the commander in chief. How do you hold Clinton responsible for the final judgment of Obama? Post war planning is also not the purview of the State Department. That's a military function. The State department runs the diplomats. It seems that your beef should be with POTUS.
That being said, I"m concerned with both Dems and GOP hawkishness. But with Rand Paul out of the mix and Bernie being the longest of shots, there will not be a sea change in our foreign policy in the next administration.
It's been 87 days since Hillary Clinton held a press conference, months longer than any other presidential candidate left in the 2016 race. Clinton's last media availability took place on December 4 in Fort Dodge, Iowa. She took seven questions from a small group of journalists on a Friday night.
In the three months since, Clinton has held hundreds of events across more than 20 states. She did not formally answer questions from her traveling press corps once during that time.
Pentagon generals objected to destroying the Libyan state. They felt Hillary did not have a safe post-war plan. Hillary Clinton went over their heads. Libya has been destroyed. It became a haven for ISIS. The Libyan national armory was looted and hundreds of tons of weapons were transferred to jihadists in Syria. Hillary's war has increased terrorism, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and has set back women's rights in the Middle East by hundreds of years. Having learned nothing from the Libyan disaster Hillary then set about trying do the same in Syria.
Hillary publicly took credit for the destruction of the Libyan state. On hearing that the country's president had been killed by her handiwork, she became wild-eyed and gloated "We came, we saw, he died!". In the momentary thrill of the kill, she had aped, of all people, Julius Ceaser.
Hillary's problem is not just that she's war hawk. She's a war hawk with bad judgement who gets an unseemly emotional rush out of killing people. She shouldn't be let near a gun shop, let alone an army. And she certainly should not become president of the United States. From assange
The Secretary of State doesn't control the armed forces. That's the commander in chief. How do you hold Clinton responsible for the final judgment of Obama? Post war planning is also not the purview of the State Department. That's a military function. The State department runs the diplomats. It seems that your beef should be with POTUS.
You work for her campaign?
The second piece in the three-part series which has made Clinton’s crucial role in Libya’s demise clear ends with a description of how the former secretary of state has attempted to displace her responsibility for the outcomes of America’s Libya venture onto President Obama, even as her determination to continue to intervene in the Middle East continues to harden.
Pentagon generals objected to destroying the Libyan state. They felt Hillary did not have a safe post-war plan. Hillary Clinton went over their heads. Libya has been destroyed. It became a haven for ISIS. The Libyan national armory was looted and hundreds of tons of weapons were transferred to jihadists in Syria. Hillary's war has increased terrorism, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and has set back women's rights in the Middle East by hundreds of years. Having learned nothing from the Libyan disaster Hillary then set about trying do the same in Syria.
Hillary publicly took credit for the destruction of the Libyan state. On hearing that the country's president had been killed by her handiwork, she became wild-eyed and gloated "We came, we saw, he died!". In the momentary thrill of the kill, she had aped, of all people, Julius Ceaser.
Hillary's problem is not just that she's war hawk. She's a war hawk with bad judgement who gets an unseemly emotional rush out of killing people. She shouldn't be let near a gun shop, let alone an army. And she certainly should not become president of the United States. From assange
The Secretary of State doesn't control the armed forces. That's the commander in chief. How do you hold Clinton responsible for the final judgment of Obama? Post war planning is also not the purview of the State Department. That's a military function. The State department runs the diplomats. It seems that your beef should be with POTUS.
You work for her campaign?
The second piece in the three-part series which has made Clinton’s crucial role in Libya’s demise clear ends with a description of how the former secretary of state has attempted to displace her responsibility for the outcomes of America’s Libya venture onto President Obama, even as her determination to continue to intervene in the Middle East continues to harden.
No I don't work for her campaign, but I understand the roles of the different parts of the Executive branch. And second, I'm not a single issue voter. So I absolutely hate the neocons and interventionist policies. And Clinton is likely to continue many of these policies which I don't like. But Bernie is highly unrealistic on his policies inasmuch as what can be implemented. Plus I'm an economic moderate. So in a world of imperfect (or horrible) candidates, she is the one that disturbs me the least.
Pentagon generals objected to destroying the Libyan state. They felt Hillary did not have a safe post-war plan. Hillary Clinton went over their heads. Libya has been destroyed. It became a haven for ISIS. The Libyan national armory was looted and hundreds of tons of weapons were transferred to jihadists in Syria. Hillary's war has increased terrorism, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and has set back women's rights in the Middle East by hundreds of years. Having learned nothing from the Libyan disaster Hillary then set about trying do the same in Syria.
Hillary publicly took credit for the destruction of the Libyan state. On hearing that the country's president had been killed by her handiwork, she became wild-eyed and gloated "We came, we saw, he died!". In the momentary thrill of the kill, she had aped, of all people, Julius Ceaser.
Hillary's problem is not just that she's war hawk. She's a war hawk with bad judgement who gets an unseemly emotional rush out of killing people. She shouldn't be let near a gun shop, let alone an army. And she certainly should not become president of the United States. From assange
The Secretary of State doesn't control the armed forces. That's the commander in chief. How do you hold Clinton responsible for the final judgment of Obama? Post war planning is also not the purview of the State Department. That's a military function. The State department runs the diplomats. It seems that your beef should be with POTUS.
You work for her campaign?
The second piece in the three-part series which has made Clinton’s crucial role in Libya’s demise clear ends with a description of how the former secretary of state has attempted to displace her responsibility for the outcomes of America’s Libya venture onto President Obama, even as her determination to continue to intervene in the Middle East continues to harden.
No I don't work for her campaign, but I understand the roles of the different parts of the Executive branch. And second, I'm not a single issue voter. So I absolutely hate the neocons and interventionist policies. And Clinton is likely to continue many of these policies which I don't like. But Bernie is highly unrealistic on his policies inasmuch as what can be implemented. Plus I'm an economic moderate. So in a world of imperfect (or horrible) candidates, she is the one that disturbs me the least.
Appreciate the reply. I'm with you all the way until the last sentence. As bad as W was I think she has the potential to steal his worse president ever title.
1. Lower turnout is helping Bernie Sanders. The entire decline in turnout in Democratic presidential nomination contests has been among moderates--liberal turnout is equal to the record breaking levels of 2008.
According to exit polls, an estimated 342,000 self-identified liberals participated in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada in 2016, vs 343,000 in 2008. By contrast, turnout among moderates and conservatives declined from an estimated 301,000 to 160,000, for a drop of nearly 47%.
The only way for turnout to go up at this point is for moderates to start voting more, and exit polls show that moderates skew toward Clinton. In Iowa, she won moderates by 23% when the state was tied as a whole. In Nevada, she won moderates by 22%, while Sanders won liberals by 5%. In New Hampshire, there was less difference, but Clinton still did 2% better among moderates than she did among liberals.
2. But don't worry Sanders fans, there is zero chance turnout will increase in future primaries and caucuses. Following his defeat in the Nevada caucuses, Bernie Sanders blamed his defeat on low turnout, saying the following on Meet the Press:
...we will do well when young people, when working-class people come out. We do not do well when the voter turnout is not large. We did not do as good a job as I had wanted to bring out a large turnout.
Unfortunately for Senator Sanders, there is absolutely no chance of voter turnout going up in future contests. The high-attention early states in presidential nominating contests always have much high turnout rates than contests which take place later in the primary calendar. For example, in 2008, New Hampshire had a 54% turnout rate, with all other primaries averaging 30%. Iowa had a 16% turnout rate, with all other caucuses averaging 5%.
The reason for this should be obvious--campaigns lavish early states with months worth of personal appearances, dozens of field offices, and millions of dollars in paid advertising. Resources spent on later states are comparatively small.
However, as was noted in point #1, this isn't actually bad news for Sanders. Lower turnout is helping him so far, because 100% of the lower turnout is coming from self-identified moderates--a demographic that is pro-Clinton.
3. Primary turnout is not predictive of general election turnout. A concern expressed by many Democrats have right now is that while Democratic turnout is down from 2008, Republican primary turnout is at record breaking levels. While this is true, it is also true that the Republican turnout advantage over Democrats in early presidential nomination contests was much larger in 2000 than it so far has been in 2016, and Al Gore went on to win the popular vote in the general election anyway. The point being that there is no demonstrated connection between presidential primary turnout rates and presidential general election turnout rates.
4. The difference between high turnout and low turnout presidential elections is a lot less than you might think. In 2000--the second lowest turnout general election in history--turnout among the voting eligible population was 54.2%. In 2008--the highest turnout general election since 18-year olds were granted the franchise--turnout among the voting eligible population was 61.6%.
That 7.2% difference is the entire amount that voter turnout could potentially vary in 2016 (I'm basing this on two pretty safe assumptions--that the open Supreme Court seat makes equalling the lowest possible turnout of all-time impossible, and that surpassing the modern record set in 2008 is also impossible).
No matter who the candidates are, no matter how populist the message is, no matter how many volunteers, or how good the data or how clever the tactics, the absolute maximum range in voter turnout is 7.2% of the voting eligible population. In all likelihood, the range that is on the table in 2016 is less than 7.2%. Further, a not insignificant percentage of the unlikely voters who do turnout will go Republican, especially if the nominee is Trump.
"Turning out new voters" is not a magic wand, and it is not infinity. Lots of people have care enough about politics that they turn out in every presidential election, and a lot of other people will never turnout no matter what you do. Only a fairly small slice of the population legitimately wavers between voting and not voting in presidential elections--and not all of those people are Democrats or progressives. (Most of them probably don't even follow politics much at all, to be honest.)
Voter turnout efforts are absolutely worth pursuing, but they are difficult.
In 2014, Daily Kos teamed up with MoveOn to help turn out voters in crucial Senate races. The over 6,000 Daily Kos volunteers who participated in that program made 1.49 million phone calls to "drop-off" voters--that is, people who turn out for presidential elections but tend to stay home during midterms.Those 1.49 million phone calls made by the 6,000 volunteers generated 21,000 pledges to vote. That comes to 3.5 votes per volunteer, and one voter for every 700 phone calls made.
At that rate, turning out 1,400,000 unlikely voters--or, 1% of the 2016 electorate--would require 400,000 people making one billion phone calls.
I am the Executive Campaign Director here at Daily Kos, so you better believe that I am going try and make as big a dent through our GOTV efforts as we possibly can. But I mean, one billion phone calls? To increase voter turnout by just 1%? This is a difficult job, and we need to have our eyes open about just how difficult it is.
DNC Chair Joins GOP Attack On Elizabeth Warren's Agency Payday lenders get a new ally WASHINGTON -- Payday lenders have been gunning for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since the day President Barack Obama tapped Elizabeth Warren to set up the new agency. They've had plenty of help from congressional Republicans -- longtime recipients of campaign contributions from the payday loan industry. As the CFPB has moved closer to adopting new rules to shield families from predatory lending, the GOP has assailed the agency from every conceivable angle -- going after its budget, attempting to tie its hands with new layers of red tape, fomenting conspiracy theories about rogue regulators illegally shutting down businesses and launching direct attacks on payday loan rules themselves.
To date, the GOP blitz has resulted in a few close shaves for the young agency, but no actual defeats. But the industry has cultivated a powerful new ally in recent weeks: Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).
Wasserman Schultz is co-sponsoring a new bill that would gut the CFPB's forthcoming payday loan regulations. She's also attempting to gin up Democratic support for the legislation on Capitol Hill, according to a memo obtained by The Huffington Post.
LISTEN to HuffPost's analysis of the bill in the latest episode of the "So That Happened" politics podcast below. The discussion begins at the 53:35 mark:
DNC Chair Joins GOP Attack On Elizabeth Warren's Agency Payday lenders get a new ally WASHINGTON -- Payday lenders have been gunning for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since the day President Barack Obama tapped Elizabeth Warren to set up the new agency. They've had plenty of help from congressional Republicans -- longtime recipients of campaign contributions from the payday loan industry. As the CFPB has moved closer to adopting new rules to shield families from predatory lending, the GOP has assailed the agency from every conceivable angle -- going after its budget, attempting to tie its hands with new layers of red tape, fomenting conspiracy theories about rogue regulators illegally shutting down businesses and launching direct attacks on payday loan rules themselves.
To date, the GOP blitz has resulted in a few close shaves for the young agency, but no actual defeats. But the industry has cultivated a powerful new ally in recent weeks: Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).
Wasserman Schultz is co-sponsoring a new bill that would gut the CFPB's forthcoming payday loan regulations. She's also attempting to gin up Democratic support for the legislation on Capitol Hill, according to a memo obtained by The Huffington Post.
LISTEN to HuffPost's analysis of the bill in the latest episode of the "So That Happened" politics podcast below. The discussion begins at the 53:35 mark:
I'm a lifelong Democrat, but let me say this... the CFPB fucking sucks. They are staffed full of young lawyers both on the rule making and the examination side that know ZERO about the industries which they are trying to regulate. The whole reason payday loans exploded in the past three years is that CFPB's draconian rules on the banks regarding regulation of ALL types of loans has caused banks to exit the mid prime and subprime space. Payday loans have filled this space because there is still a financial need for these people and OCC/FDIC regulated institutions have walked away from it. In order to protect the 8% of subprime consumers that go delinquent on bank loans, the CFPB has destroyed lending for the 92% that pay their bills. It's the law of unintended consequences.
Pentagon generals objected to destroying the Libyan state. They felt Hillary did not have a safe post-war plan. Hillary Clinton went over their heads. Libya has been destroyed. It became a haven for ISIS. The Libyan national armory was looted and hundreds of tons of weapons were transferred to jihadists in Syria. Hillary's war has increased terrorism, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and has set back women's rights in the Middle East by hundreds of years. Having learned nothing from the Libyan disaster Hillary then set about trying do the same in Syria.
Hillary publicly took credit for the destruction of the Libyan state. On hearing that the country's president had been killed by her handiwork, she became wild-eyed and gloated "We came, we saw, he died!". In the momentary thrill of the kill, she had aped, of all people, Julius Ceaser.
Hillary's problem is not just that she's war hawk. She's a war hawk with bad judgement who gets an unseemly emotional rush out of killing people. She shouldn't be let near a gun shop, let alone an army. And she certainly should not become president of the United States. From assange
The Secretary of State doesn't control the armed forces. That's the commander in chief. How do you hold Clinton responsible for the final judgment of Obama? Post war planning is also not the purview of the State Department. That's a military function. The State department runs the diplomats. It seems that your beef should be with POTUS.
You work for her campaign?
The second piece in the three-part series which has made Clinton’s crucial role in Libya’s demise clear ends with a description of how the former secretary of state has attempted to displace her responsibility for the outcomes of America’s Libya venture onto President Obama, even as her determination to continue to intervene in the Middle East continues to harden.
No I don't work for her campaign, but I understand the roles of the different parts of the Executive branch. And second, I'm not a single issue voter. So I absolutely hate the neocons and interventionist policies. And Clinton is likely to continue many of these policies which I don't like. But Bernie is highly unrealistic on his policies inasmuch as what can be implemented. Plus I'm an economic moderate. So in a world of imperfect (or horrible) candidates, she is the one that disturbs me the least.
Appreciate the reply. I'm with you all the way until the last sentence. As bad as W was I think she has the potential to steal his worse president ever title.
I think that is a bit hyperbolic. I think she will continue Obama's policies. She won't surround herself with think tank exiles from the Weekly Standard and National Review, etc.
DNC Chair Joins GOP Attack On Elizabeth Warren's Agency Payday lenders get a new ally WASHINGTON -- Payday lenders have been gunning for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since the day President Barack Obama tapped Elizabeth Warren to set up the new agency. They've had plenty of help from congressional Republicans -- longtime recipients of campaign contributions from the payday loan industry. As the CFPB has moved closer to adopting new rules to shield families from predatory lending, the GOP has assailed the agency from every conceivable angle -- going after its budget, attempting to tie its hands with new layers of red tape, fomenting conspiracy theories about rogue regulators illegally shutting down businesses and launching direct attacks on payday loan rules themselves.
To date, the GOP blitz has resulted in a few close shaves for the young agency, but no actual defeats. But the industry has cultivated a powerful new ally in recent weeks: Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).
Wasserman Schultz is co-sponsoring a new bill that would gut the CFPB's forthcoming payday loan regulations. She's also attempting to gin up Democratic support for the legislation on Capitol Hill, according to a memo obtained by The Huffington Post.
LISTEN to HuffPost's analysis of the bill in the latest episode of the "So That Happened" politics podcast below. The discussion begins at the 53:35 mark:
I'm a lifelong Democrat, but let me say this... the CFPB fucking sucks. They are staffed full of young lawyers both on the rule making and the examination side that know ZERO about the industries which they are trying to regulate. The whole reason payday loans exploded in the past three years is that CFPB's draconian rules on the banks regarding regulation of ALL types of loans has caused banks to exit the mid prime and subprime space. Payday loans have filled this space because there is still a financial need for these people and OCC/FDIC regulated institutions have walked away from it. In order to protect the 8% of subprime consumers that go delinquent on bank loans, the CFPB has destroyed lending for the 92% that pay their bills. It's the law of unintended consequences.
DNC Chair Joins GOP Attack On Elizabeth Warren's Agency Payday lenders get a new ally WASHINGTON -- Payday lenders have been gunning for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since the day President Barack Obama tapped Elizabeth Warren to set up the new agency. They've had plenty of help from congressional Republicans -- longtime recipients of campaign contributions from the payday loan industry. As the CFPB has moved closer to adopting new rules to shield families from predatory lending, the GOP has assailed the agency from every conceivable angle -- going after its budget, attempting to tie its hands with new layers of red tape, fomenting conspiracy theories about rogue regulators illegally shutting down businesses and launching direct attacks on payday loan rules themselves.
To date, the GOP blitz has resulted in a few close shaves for the young agency, but no actual defeats. But the industry has cultivated a powerful new ally in recent weeks: Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).
Wasserman Schultz is co-sponsoring a new bill that would gut the CFPB's forthcoming payday loan regulations. She's also attempting to gin up Democratic support for the legislation on Capitol Hill, according to a memo obtained by The Huffington Post.
LISTEN to HuffPost's analysis of the bill in the latest episode of the "So That Happened" politics podcast below. The discussion begins at the 53:35 mark:
I'm a lifelong Democrat, but let me say this... the CFPB fucking sucks. They are staffed full of young lawyers both on the rule making and the examination side that know ZERO about the industries which they are trying to regulate. The whole reason payday loans exploded in the past three years is that CFPB's draconian rules on the banks regarding regulation of ALL types of loans has caused banks to exit the mid prime and subprime space. Payday loans have filled this space because there is still a financial need for these people and OCC/FDIC regulated institutions have walked away from it. In order to protect the 8% of subprime consumers that go delinquent on bank loans, the CFPB has destroyed lending for the 92% that pay their bills. It's the law of unintended consequences.
Aww, bank regulations suck. Wah!
mrussel1 spent the time to give you a well thought out response and doesn't deserve this reply.
DNC Chair Joins GOP Attack On Elizabeth Warren's Agency Payday lenders get a new ally WASHINGTON -- Payday lenders have been gunning for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since the day President Barack Obama tapped Elizabeth Warren to set up the new agency. They've had plenty of help from congressional Republicans -- longtime recipients of campaign contributions from the payday loan industry. As the CFPB has moved closer to adopting new rules to shield families from predatory lending, the GOP has assailed the agency from every conceivable angle -- going after its budget, attempting to tie its hands with new layers of red tape, fomenting conspiracy theories about rogue regulators illegally shutting down businesses and launching direct attacks on payday loan rules themselves.
To date, the GOP blitz has resulted in a few close shaves for the young agency, but no actual defeats. But the industry has cultivated a powerful new ally in recent weeks: Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).
Wasserman Schultz is co-sponsoring a new bill that would gut the CFPB's forthcoming payday loan regulations. She's also attempting to gin up Democratic support for the legislation on Capitol Hill, according to a memo obtained by The Huffington Post.
LISTEN to HuffPost's analysis of the bill in the latest episode of the "So That Happened" politics podcast below. The discussion begins at the 53:35 mark:
I'm a lifelong Democrat, but let me say this... the CFPB fucking sucks. They are staffed full of young lawyers both on the rule making and the examination side that know ZERO about the industries which they are trying to regulate. The whole reason payday loans exploded in the past three years is that CFPB's draconian rules on the banks regarding regulation of ALL types of loans has caused banks to exit the mid prime and subprime space. Payday loans have filled this space because there is still a financial need for these people and OCC/FDIC regulated institutions have walked away from it. In order to protect the 8% of subprime consumers that go delinquent on bank loans, the CFPB has destroyed lending for the 92% that pay their bills. It's the law of unintended consequences.
Aww, bank regulations suck. Wah!
mrussel1 spent the time to give you a well thought out response and doesn't deserve this reply.
The CFPB was created to shield Americans from shady dealings by mortgage lenders, student loan services, and credit card companies. FFS. Excuse Elizabeth Warren for going out of her way to place consumers first. Shall we go back to the way things were 2008? This agency protects consumers. No it's not perfect, tell me what other agencies have an actual politician looking out for consumers.
DNC Chair Joins GOP Attack On Elizabeth Warren's Agency Payday lenders get a new ally WASHINGTON -- Payday lenders have been gunning for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since the day President Barack Obama tapped Elizabeth Warren to set up the new agency. They've had plenty of help from congressional Republicans -- longtime recipients of campaign contributions from the payday loan industry. As the CFPB has moved closer to adopting new rules to shield families from predatory lending, the GOP has assailed the agency from every conceivable angle -- going after its budget, attempting to tie its hands with new layers of red tape, fomenting conspiracy theories about rogue regulators illegally shutting down businesses and launching direct attacks on payday loan rules themselves.
To date, the GOP blitz has resulted in a few close shaves for the young agency, but no actual defeats. But the industry has cultivated a powerful new ally in recent weeks: Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).
Wasserman Schultz is co-sponsoring a new bill that would gut the CFPB's forthcoming payday loan regulations. She's also attempting to gin up Democratic support for the legislation on Capitol Hill, according to a memo obtained by The Huffington Post.
LISTEN to HuffPost's analysis of the bill in the latest episode of the "So That Happened" politics podcast below. The discussion begins at the 53:35 mark:
I'm a lifelong Democrat, but let me say this... the CFPB fucking sucks. They are staffed full of young lawyers both on the rule making and the examination side that know ZERO about the industries which they are trying to regulate. The whole reason payday loans exploded in the past three years is that CFPB's draconian rules on the banks regarding regulation of ALL types of loans has caused banks to exit the mid prime and subprime space. Payday loans have filled this space because there is still a financial need for these people and OCC/FDIC regulated institutions have walked away from it. In order to protect the 8% of subprime consumers that go delinquent on bank loans, the CFPB has destroyed lending for the 92% that pay their bills. It's the law of unintended consequences.
Aww, bank regulations suck. Wah!
mrussel1 spent the time to give you a well thought out response and doesn't deserve this reply.
Thanks, much appreciated.
And I'm not anti-regulation. We have the FDCPA, Reg Z, Reg B/ECOA, TILA, FCRA, FACTA and a host of other alphabet consumer protection regulations. The CFPB is doing something totally different. They are regulating through the use of consent orders which cost a business millions of dollars to fight, or pay a penalty. It's really a travesty. It's something that I work with all the time, on both sides.
So you're with Wasserman Shultz and the GOP then. Niiiiice.
That's a ridiculous statement. That's like saying "if you don't support Bush you're with the terrorists". The argument is the same. If you knew anything about the CFPB, you could refute or support what I'm saying. But clearly you don't understand who they are, how they operate, how they fund themselves and the way they are bypassing normal rule making and regulating using consent orders. That's fine. Just don't embarrass yourself any longer. I could give a shit about Wassmerman Shultz. I'm not in FL. I live in Dave Bratt's district (formally Cantor) so I have my own fucking problems, not how FL is going to co-regulate payday lenders. And I'm sure as hell not with the GOP.
And in other, less annoying news, Hillary has been called for VA. She's up by 30 some points right now. That is very bad news for Bernie. VA is a moderate, purple state that is very diverse culturally. He needs to do well here. It can't just be in white states. The math is getting more difficult even without super delegates.
So you're with Wasserman Shultz and the GOP then. Niiiiice.
That's a ridiculous statement. That's like saying "if you don't support Bush you're with the terrorists". The argument is the same. If you knew anything about the CFPB, you could refute or support what I'm saying. But clearly you don't understand who they are, how they operate, how they fund themselves and the way they are bypassing normal rule making and regulating using consent orders. That's fine. Just don't embarrass yourself any longer. I could give a shit about Wassmerman Shultz. I'm not in FL. I live in Dave Bratt's district (formally Cantor) so I have my own fucking problems, not how FL is going to co-regulate payday lenders. And I'm sure as hell not with the GOP.
I edited to add:
(whatever the problems with this agency, what is being done to Warren is unacceptable. All in the name of her endorsement.)
So I'm not saying I know as much as you do, It appears you work in the industry. I feel like you didn't even read the link that I posted above though.perhaps all you saw was the agency name, and responded to that, it seems. This's reticle below is what I am referring to which explains it better.
I am a consumer and I side with the 265 civil rights, labor, and consumer advocacy groups that sign onto a letter opposing the legislation. For Whatever reason you may dislike this consumer agency, I don't trust banks. And I don't trust the DNC and I sure as Fock don't trust the GOP.
Payday Loan Sharks Have Good Friend in Government: Democratic Party Chair
According to a memo seen by the Huffington Post, Rep. Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) is co-sponsoring legislation (pdf) to delay new rules from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), meant to crack down on abusive payday lending that profits off deceptive terms, automatic "rollovers," staggering fees, and interest rates averaging over 300 percent annual percentage rate (APR).
The so-called "Consumer Protection and Choice Act" would delay those rules for two years and "permanently block them in any state that enacts the sort of ineffectual, industry-crafted regulatory sham that Florida adopted in 2001," ThinkProgress reports.
In December, 265 civil rights, labor, and consumer advocacy groups signed onto a letter opposing the legislation, which they decried as "an attempt to codify industry-backed practices that do little to protect consumers."
In backing the bill, the HuffPo notes, Wasserman Shultz is aligning herself with the Republican Party, which has "assailed the agency from every conceivable angle—going after its budget, attempting to tie its hands with new layers of red tape, fomenting conspiracy theories about rogue regulators illegally shutting down businesses and launching direct attacks on payday loan rules themselves."
She is also going against public opinion. A poll conducted last year for Americans for Financial Reform and the Center for Responsible Lending, showed that nearly two in three voters have a negative view of payday lenders. The same survey showed that respondents viewed payday lenders as predators rather than resources by a margin of more than 3:1.
The move also puts Wasserman Schultz—who has come under fire for the DNC's perceived pro-Hillary Clinton bias—at odds with U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who conceived of and established the CFPB and who has denounced payday lending schemes for targeting the poor.
Free - I did read the article and I despise payday lenders. I am in the industry, but not in the way that most would guess or understand. My company evaluates asset portfolios for trading in private markets. It's a unusual niche and completely business to business. Several payday lenders have come to us over the years and we won't do business with them for a variety of reasons, but mostly because of the rates of interest walk the usury line. And second, we don't want to go to war with the CFPB because of the way they litigate. Better to stay off their radar.
My point is that the payday market has exploded because of the way the CFPB has irresponsibly regulated the traditional markets. Financial institutions have found it very difficult to market and lend to mid and subprime customers so they have exited the business. These customers need to get credit somewhere and they have landed in payday lending. It's the law of unintended consequences. I supported Dodd-Frank (which created the CFPB), but the execution has left me disappointed to say the least.
Wow... Billionare backers, name recognition, former first lady, losing experience, ex senator in northeast state, ex sec of state, ex president stumping for and still struggling to secure nomination. Hillary doesn't take hints very well.
Mrussel, you say you read the article, but I would appreciate a response from you as a consumer and not a banker. The DNC is attacking the one senator who is on the consumer side and fights for us. I still don't trust banks.
Wow... Billionare backers, name recognition, former first lady, losing experience, ex senator in northeast state, ex sec of state, ex president stumping for and still struggling to secure nomination. Hillary doesn't take hints very well.
What do you mean, struggling? Her mathematical lead is daunting. It will be very difficult for Bernie to take overtake her. Remember, in 2008 Obama (before Hillary dropping out) had a very slim vote count lead over Hillary. But he had an insurmountable lead in the delegates.
Hillary won..what... 7 states to 4 last night? And that includes MA where Bernie should have won.
Comments
On Mar. 21, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and a handful of lobbying titans are scheduled to host a fundraiser for the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraising account for the Clinton campaign, the DNC and 32 state parties. According to an invitation obtained by the Sunlight Foundation, Podesta’s co-hosts include Steve Elmendorf, Jeff Forbes and Susan Brophy — all of whom were government officials before becoming lobbyists at top D.C. firms. The event with Podesta — whose brother is a corporate lobbyist and fundraising bundler for Clinton — follows a recent fundraising blitz by Clinton in which her campaign raised money from financial, energy and other industries that expect to have business before the next president.
The DNC’s prohibition on lobbyist donations was instituted in 2008 at the behest of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, who told voters: “They will not fund my party.” Clinton’s current Democratic primary opponent, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, has pushed her to demand the DNC reinstate the lobbyist contribution ban. Clinton is already the top recipient of money from lobbyists in the 2016 campaign, the New York Times reported.
all of whom were government officials before becoming lobbyists at top D.C. firms
Hillary publicly took credit for the destruction of the Libyan state. On hearing that the country's president had been killed by her handiwork, she became wild-eyed and gloated "We came, we saw, he died!". In the momentary thrill of the kill, she had aped, of all people, Julius Ceaser.
Hillary's problem is not just that she's war hawk. She's a war hawk with bad judgement who gets an unseemly emotional rush out of killing people. She shouldn't be let near a gun shop, let alone an army. And she certainly should not become president of the United States.
From assange
Clinton's last media availability took place on December 4 in Fort Dodge, Iowa. She took seven questions from a small group of journalists on a Friday night.
In the three months since, Clinton has held hundreds of events across more than 20 states. She did not formally answer questions from her traveling press corps once during that time.
The second piece in the three-part series which has made Clinton’s crucial role in Libya’s demise clear ends with a description of how the former secretary of state has attempted to displace her responsibility for the outcomes of America’s Libya venture onto President Obama, even as her determination to continue to intervene in the Middle East continues to harden.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/libya-isis-hillary-clinton.html?
As bad as W was I think she has the potential to steal his worse president ever title.
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/26/1492137/-Four-things-most-Democrats-don-t-know-about-voter-turnout-in-2016-but-probably-should
1. Lower turnout is helping Bernie Sanders. The entire decline in turnout in Democratic presidential nomination contests has been among moderates--liberal turnout is equal to the record breaking levels of 2008.
According to exit polls, an estimated 342,000 self-identified liberals participated in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada in 2016, vs 343,000 in 2008. By contrast, turnout among moderates and conservatives declined from an estimated 301,000 to 160,000, for a drop of nearly 47%.
The only way for turnout to go up at this point is for moderates to start voting more, and exit polls show that moderates skew toward Clinton. In Iowa, she won moderates by 23% when the state was tied as a whole. In Nevada, she won moderates by 22%, while Sanders won liberals by 5%. In New Hampshire, there was less difference, but Clinton still did 2% better among moderates than she did among liberals.
2. But don't worry Sanders fans, there is zero chance turnout will increase in future primaries and caucuses. Following his defeat in the Nevada caucuses, Bernie Sanders blamed his defeat on low turnout, saying the following on Meet the Press:
...we will do well when young people, when working-class people come out. We do not do well when the voter turnout is not large. We did not do as good a job as I had wanted to bring out a large turnout.
Unfortunately for Senator Sanders, there is absolutely no chance of voter turnout going up in future contests. The high-attention early states in presidential nominating contests always have much high turnout rates than contests which take place later in the primary calendar. For example, in 2008, New Hampshire had a 54% turnout rate, with all other primaries averaging 30%. Iowa had a 16% turnout rate, with all other caucuses averaging 5%.
The reason for this should be obvious--campaigns lavish early states with months worth of personal appearances, dozens of field offices, and millions of dollars in paid advertising. Resources spent on later states are comparatively small.
However, as was noted in point #1, this isn't actually bad news for Sanders. Lower turnout is helping him so far, because 100% of the lower turnout is coming from self-identified moderates--a demographic that is pro-Clinton.
3. Primary turnout is not predictive of general election turnout. A concern expressed by many Democrats have right now is that while Democratic turnout is down from 2008, Republican primary turnout is at record breaking levels. While this is true, it is also true that the Republican turnout advantage over Democrats in early presidential nomination contests was much larger in 2000 than it so far has been in 2016, and Al Gore went on to win the popular vote in the general election anyway. The point being that there is no demonstrated connection between presidential primary turnout rates and presidential general election turnout rates.
4. The difference between high turnout and low turnout presidential elections is a lot less than you might think. In 2000--the second lowest turnout general election in history--turnout among the voting eligible population was 54.2%. In 2008--the highest turnout general election since 18-year olds were granted the franchise--turnout among the voting eligible population was 61.6%.
That 7.2% difference is the entire amount that voter turnout could potentially vary in 2016 (I'm basing this on two pretty safe assumptions--that the open Supreme Court seat makes equalling the lowest possible turnout of all-time impossible, and that surpassing the modern record set in 2008 is also impossible).
No matter who the candidates are, no matter how populist the message is, no matter how many volunteers, or how good the data or how clever the tactics, the absolute maximum range in voter turnout is 7.2% of the voting eligible population. In all likelihood, the range that is on the table in 2016 is less than 7.2%. Further, a not insignificant percentage of the unlikely voters who do turnout will go Republican, especially if the nominee is Trump.
"Turning out new voters" is not a magic wand, and it is not infinity. Lots of people have care enough about politics that they turn out in every presidential election, and a lot of other people will never turnout no matter what you do. Only a fairly small slice of the population legitimately wavers between voting and not voting in presidential elections--and not all of those people are Democrats or progressives. (Most of them probably don't even follow politics much at all, to be honest.)
Voter turnout efforts are absolutely worth pursuing, but they are difficult.
In 2014, Daily Kos teamed up with MoveOn to help turn out voters in crucial Senate races. The over 6,000 Daily Kos volunteers who participated in that program made 1.49 million phone calls to "drop-off" voters--that is, people who turn out for presidential elections but tend to stay home during midterms.Those 1.49 million phone calls made by the 6,000 volunteers generated 21,000 pledges to vote. That comes to 3.5 votes per volunteer, and one voter for every 700 phone calls made.
At that rate, turning out 1,400,000 unlikely voters--or, 1% of the 2016 electorate--would require 400,000 people making one billion phone calls.
I am the Executive Campaign Director here at Daily Kos, so you better believe that I am going try and make as big a dent through our GOTV efforts as we possibly can. But I mean, one billion phone calls? To increase voter turnout by just 1%? This is a difficult job, and we need to have our eyes open about just how difficult it is.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/debbie-wasserman-schultz-paylenders-cfpb_us_56d4ce38e4b03260bf77e8fc
DNC Chair Joins GOP Attack On Elizabeth Warren's Agency
Payday lenders get a new ally
WASHINGTON -- Payday lenders have been gunning for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since the day President Barack Obama tapped Elizabeth Warren to set up the new agency. They've had plenty of help from congressional Republicans -- longtime recipients of campaign contributions from the payday loan industry. As the CFPB has moved closer to adopting new rules to shield families from predatory lending, the GOP has assailed the agency from every conceivable angle -- going after its budget, attempting to tie its hands with new layers of red tape, fomenting conspiracy theories about rogue regulators illegally shutting down businesses and launching direct attacks on payday loan rules themselves.
To date, the GOP blitz has resulted in a few close shaves for the young agency, but no actual defeats. But the industry has cultivated a powerful new ally in recent weeks: Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).
Wasserman Schultz is co-sponsoring a new bill that would gut the CFPB's forthcoming payday loan regulations. She's also attempting to gin up Democratic support for the legislation on Capitol Hill, according to a memo obtained by The Huffington Post.
LISTEN to HuffPost's analysis of the bill in the latest episode of the "So That Happened" politics podcast below. The discussion begins at the 53:35 mark:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/elizabeth-warren-consumer-financial-protection-bureau
And I'm not anti-regulation. We have the FDCPA, Reg Z, Reg B/ECOA, TILA, FCRA, FACTA and a host of other alphabet consumer protection regulations. The CFPB is doing something totally different. They are regulating through the use of consent orders which cost a business millions of dollars to fight, or pay a penalty. It's really a travesty. It's something that I work with all the time, on both sides.
(whatever the problems with this agency, what is being done to Warren is unacceptable. All in the name of her endorsement.)
(whatever the problems with this agency, what is being done to Warren is unacceptable. All in the name of her endorsement.)
So I'm not saying I know as much as you do, It appears you work in the industry. I feel like you didn't even read the link that I posted above though.perhaps all you saw was the agency name, and responded to that, it seems. This's reticle below is what I am referring to which explains it better.
I am a consumer and I side with the 265 civil rights, labor, and consumer advocacy groups that sign onto a letter opposing the legislation. For Whatever reason you may dislike this consumer agency, I don't trust banks. And I don't trust the DNC and I sure as Fock don't trust the GOP.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/03/01/payday-loan-sharks-have-good-friend-government-democratic-party-chair
Payday Loan Sharks Have Good Friend in Government: Democratic Party Chair
My point is that the payday market has exploded because of the way the CFPB has irresponsibly regulated the traditional markets. Financial institutions have found it very difficult to market and lend to mid and subprime customers so they have exited the business. These customers need to get credit somewhere and they have landed in payday lending. It's the law of unintended consequences. I supported Dodd-Frank (which created the CFPB), but the execution has left me disappointed to say the least.
Hillary doesn't take hints very well.
Hillary won..what... 7 states to 4 last night? And that includes MA where Bernie should have won.