The Democratic Candidates

jeffbr

The Juggler said:

jeffbr said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Warren blasts FOX on twitter like a champ. 

All aboard the Warren train!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/14/politics/elizabeth-warren-fox-news-town-hall/index.html

I think she makes a lot of sense. I see democrats going on fox as a complete waste of time during primary season. 

I completely disagree. It's an opportunity for candidates to speak to Fox News (the highest rated cable news network) viewers without their words being disseminated through Hannity or whoever. That's actually a great opportunity, if you have the guts to go for it. Sanders and Klobachar did it. Buttigeg and Gillibrand are doing it. I think Warren's quote that Fox News is a "hate-for-profit racket that gives a megaphone to racists and conspiracists" is total cop-out. Not that there isn't truth to that statement, but even if you believe that, take them on. 

I think someone should go on possibly during the general. I'm saying I don't think it makes much sense during primary season. how many fox viewers will vote in the dem primaries? My guess is not many. 

I don't think that's a good way of looking at it; that Fox viewers aren't voting in dem primaries. First off, as the Sanders town hall showed, many non-typical Fox viewers may tune in. Secondly, since most of these dems (especially Warren) don't have a chance of getting the nomination, they should look at a Fox town hall not just as a way of getting votes, but getting your entire platform out there. What's the typical Fox News viewer know about Warren? They know she said she's native American when she's not. That's all. She's been in Washington since 2008. She should want to let people know what she's done. But...if she'd rather dismiss all those viewers as racists that watch a racist television channel, she can have at it. 

yes, you're right actually. she's basically doing her version of "basket of deplorables". 

I actually thought the same thing. Even almost used "deplorable" in my post.

Another thing worth noting is there's been some cries of unbalanced coverage of the male and female candidates, with Bernie, Biden, and even Pete getting way more attention than Harris, Warren, etc. So to be offered this town hall should be looked at as a great opportunity. 

I agree with this. Also, keep in mind that there are Fox viewers who are Republican but are part of the #nevertrump camp. My dad is one of those. A Fox News watcher for some reason, but also a Trump hater, who has written his congressman on numerous occasions demanding he start the impeachment process. Those viewers may find a good alternative to voting Trump if a message is heard that resonates. So while Warren likely won't pick up a lot of support from an appearance like this, she just may strike a chord with some of the viewers who may see her in a different light. Who knows? Anyway, the opportunity to speak to the "opposition" to make your case should never be dismissed out of hand.

Is your dad wanting to cast his vote for Bill Weld?

At this point, yes. I will, too in my GOP primary, and then vote for the Dem candidate in the general. I'm voting against Trump at every opportunity this time.

Spiritual_Chaos

https://youtu.be/1uz-tf9kqWo

Meltdown99

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1128782190920294400

Another Candidate.

Spiritual_Chaos

Seth Myers points out Biden being wrong:

https://youtu.be/kQiMdZJBRI8

benjs

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Seth Myers points out Biden being wrong:

https://youtu.be/kQiMdZJBRI8

I love his closing remark... "Right now the government is like a pizzeria where half of the employees think there should be more toppings, and the other half doesn't think pizza is real". Sums it up nicely for me.

mrussel1

New proposal from Kamela.  I like it.  I also think it's feasible since companies can adjust for merit and tenure.  Second, using a third party certification process is a great idea.  I'm sure SHRM-CP and similar companies will dig it too.  Thoughts?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/equal-pay-kamala-harris_n_5ce18f8de4b09e0578061ac4

benjs

mrussel1 said:

New proposal from Kamela.  I like it.  I also think it's feasible since companies can adjust for merit and tenure.  Second, using a third party certification process is a great idea.  I'm sure SHRM-CP and similar companies will dig it too.  Thoughts?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/equal-pay-kamala-harris_n_5ce18f8de4b09e0578061ac4

I like this a lot. She seems to be thinking pretty globally in terms of the impacts and how they'll be mitigated or how they can be used to support the idea.

mrussel1

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

New proposal from Kamela.  I like it.  I also think it's feasible since companies can adjust for merit and tenure.  Second, using a third party certification process is a great idea.  I'm sure SHRM-CP and similar companies will dig it too.  Thoughts?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/equal-pay-kamala-harris_n_5ce18f8de4b09e0578061ac4

I like this a lot. She seems to be thinking pretty globally in terms of the impacts and how they'll be mitigated or how they can be used to support the idea.

Exactly.  Sanders and AOC rolled out that max interest rate of 15% for credit proposal last week.  It was clear to me that they had not thought one minute about how badly that will actually hurt the underserved/poor consumers in this country.  The unintended consequences have already been seen with previous regulation.  Harris's seems to be well thought out and she likely consulted from both perspectives.  Good for her.  Plus it isn't out to destroy a specific company.  

Smellyman

My vote

https://youtu.be/C5-DCiKfLoM

mrussel1

I like Pete.  He is not emphasizing polarization, which I'm down with..

benjs

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

New proposal from Kamela.  I like it.  I also think it's feasible since companies can adjust for merit and tenure.  Second, using a third party certification process is a great idea.  I'm sure SHRM-CP and similar companies will dig it too.  Thoughts?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/equal-pay-kamala-harris_n_5ce18f8de4b09e0578061ac4

I like this a lot. She seems to be thinking pretty globally in terms of the impacts and how they'll be mitigated or how they can be used to support the idea.

Exactly.  Sanders and AOC rolled out that max interest rate of 15% for credit proposal last week.  It was clear to me that they had not thought one minute about how badly that will actually hurt the underserved/poor consumers in this country.  The unintended consequences have already been seen with previous regulation.  Harris's seems to be well thought out and she likely consulted from both perspectives.  Good for her.  Plus it isn't out to destroy a specific company.  

Funny you mention that. I do a lot of process development work at our business and it always shows when someone has attempted to poke holes in their own ideas before seeking executive feedback (the proactive way), and when they've neglected that step and waited for you to call them out on it (the lazy way). I've felt that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have been in the latter boat for quite some time - and while I can accept that AOC's new to this, I really don't feel Sanders has an effective communication style or has shown any propensity or desire to change that. That said, the masses will decide on that front.

Gern Blansten

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

New proposal from Kamela.  I like it.  I also think it's feasible since companies can adjust for merit and tenure.  Second, using a third party certification process is a great idea.  I'm sure SHRM-CP and similar companies will dig it too.  Thoughts?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/equal-pay-kamala-harris_n_5ce18f8de4b09e0578061ac4

I like this a lot. She seems to be thinking pretty globally in terms of the impacts and how they'll be mitigated or how they can be used to support the idea.

Exactly.  Sanders and AOC rolled out that max interest rate of 15% for credit proposal last week.  It was clear to me that they had not thought one minute about how badly that will actually hurt the underserved/poor consumers in this country.  The unintended consequences have already been seen with previous regulation.  Harris's seems to be well thought out and she likely consulted from both perspectives.  Good for her.  Plus it isn't out to destroy a specific company.  

Funny you mention that. I do a lot of process development work at our business and it always shows when someone has attempted to poke holes in their own ideas before seeking executive feedback (the proactive way), and when they've neglected that step and waited for you to call them out on it (the lazy way). I've felt that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have been in the latter boat for quite some time - and while I can accept that AOC's new to this, I really don't feel Sanders has an effective communication style or has shown any propensity or desire to change that. That said, the masses will decide on that front.

15% is better than no max or 30% though right?  I think they thought it through and decided that 15% was a good compromise if it is a MAX rate.

Meltdown99

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

New proposal from Kamela.  I like it.  I also think it's feasible since companies can adjust for merit and tenure.  Second, using a third party certification process is a great idea.  I'm sure SHRM-CP and similar companies will dig it too.  Thoughts?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/equal-pay-kamala-harris_n_5ce18f8de4b09e0578061ac4

I like this a lot. She seems to be thinking pretty globally in terms of the impacts and how they'll be mitigated or how they can be used to support the idea.

Exactly.  Sanders and AOC rolled out that max interest rate of 15% for credit proposal last week.  It was clear to me that they had not thought one minute about how badly that will actually hurt the underserved/poor consumers in this country.  The unintended consequences have already been seen with previous regulation.  Harris's seems to be well thought out and she likely consulted from both perspectives.  Good for her.  Plus it isn't out to destroy a specific company.  

So credit card companies cannot thrive at 15% interest?  Or do they need to charge high interest because the poor/underserved are more likely to be late with payments/default...so if interest rates are capped they would be unlikely to give credit to people with low income?  If this means less credit to people with low income, then this could be a good thing. 

brianlux

Smellyman said:

My vote

https://youtu.be/C5-DCiKfLoM

Yeah, I like Booty Judge.  Smart guy, good choice.

benjs

Gern Blansten said:

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

New proposal from Kamela.  I like it.  I also think it's feasible since companies can adjust for merit and tenure.  Second, using a third party certification process is a great idea.  I'm sure SHRM-CP and similar companies will dig it too.  Thoughts?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/equal-pay-kamala-harris_n_5ce18f8de4b09e0578061ac4

I like this a lot. She seems to be thinking pretty globally in terms of the impacts and how they'll be mitigated or how they can be used to support the idea.

Exactly.  Sanders and AOC rolled out that max interest rate of 15% for credit proposal last week.  It was clear to me that they had not thought one minute about how badly that will actually hurt the underserved/poor consumers in this country.  The unintended consequences have already been seen with previous regulation.  Harris's seems to be well thought out and she likely consulted from both perspectives.  Good for her.  Plus it isn't out to destroy a specific company.  

Funny you mention that. I do a lot of process development work at our business and it always shows when someone has attempted to poke holes in their own ideas before seeking executive feedback (the proactive way), and when they've neglected that step and waited for you to call them out on it (the lazy way). I've felt that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have been in the latter boat for quite some time - and while I can accept that AOC's new to this, I really don't feel Sanders has an effective communication style or has shown any propensity or desire to change that. That said, the masses will decide on that front.

15% is better than no max or 30% though right?  I think they thought it through and decided that 15% was a good compromise if it is a MAX rate.

Gern, I should clarify. I'm just saying in general people need to play devil's advocate for their own ideas more frequently and anticipate the opposition points before the opposition gets to exploit that weakness. It seems like this is a regular political flub. I didn't mean to imply anything about that particular situation, more about considering downstream consequences and predicting opposition talking points.

mrussel1

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

New proposal from Kamela.  I like it.  I also think it's feasible since companies can adjust for merit and tenure.  Second, using a third party certification process is a great idea.  I'm sure SHRM-CP and similar companies will dig it too.  Thoughts?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/equal-pay-kamala-harris_n_5ce18f8de4b09e0578061ac4

I like this a lot. She seems to be thinking pretty globally in terms of the impacts and how they'll be mitigated or how they can be used to support the idea.

Exactly.  Sanders and AOC rolled out that max interest rate of 15% for credit proposal last week.  It was clear to me that they had not thought one minute about how badly that will actually hurt the underserved/poor consumers in this country.  The unintended consequences have already been seen with previous regulation.  Harris's seems to be well thought out and she likely consulted from both perspectives.  Good for her.  Plus it isn't out to destroy a specific company.  

So credit card companies cannot thrive at 15% interest?  Or do they need to charge high interest because the poor/underserved are more likely to be late with payments/default...so if interest rates are capped they would be unlikely to give credit to people with low income?  If this means less credit to people with low income, then this could be a good thing. 

Yes, you're correct.  You can't loan to an underserved/high risk customer at 15%, so you won't lend them money.  In 2009, the Card Act was rolled out and that capped the fees on credit cards.  Without the fees, major banks could not make the numbers work, so they exited the market.  IN their place popped up payday lending which typically falls below the radar of the CFPB, OCC and other regulators.  People with poor credit were forced to go there, which was not better for them.  

Regarding your second comment, it's not a good thing.  Because you can't earn or re-establish credit without borrowing.  And without the ability to borrow you can't: buy a car, buy a house, rent a vehicle, pay for unforeseen repairs, etc.  It's actually a really bad thing at the micro level, but it also stunts economic growth in the economy at the macro level.  

mrussel1

benjs said:

Gern Blansten said:

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

New proposal from Kamela.  I like it.  I also think it's feasible since companies can adjust for merit and tenure.  Second, using a third party certification process is a great idea.  I'm sure SHRM-CP and similar companies will dig it too.  Thoughts?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/equal-pay-kamala-harris_n_5ce18f8de4b09e0578061ac4

I like this a lot. She seems to be thinking pretty globally in terms of the impacts and how they'll be mitigated or how they can be used to support the idea.

Exactly.  Sanders and AOC rolled out that max interest rate of 15% for credit proposal last week.  It was clear to me that they had not thought one minute about how badly that will actually hurt the underserved/poor consumers in this country.  The unintended consequences have already been seen with previous regulation.  Harris's seems to be well thought out and she likely consulted from both perspectives.  Good for her.  Plus it isn't out to destroy a specific company.  

Funny you mention that. I do a lot of process development work at our business and it always shows when someone has attempted to poke holes in their own ideas before seeking executive feedback (the proactive way), and when they've neglected that step and waited for you to call them out on it (the lazy way). I've felt that Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have been in the latter boat for quite some time - and while I can accept that AOC's new to this, I really don't feel Sanders has an effective communication style or has shown any propensity or desire to change that. That said, the masses will decide on that front.

15% is better than no max or 30% though right?  I think they thought it through and decided that 15% was a good compromise if it is a MAX rate.

Gern, I should clarify. I'm just saying in general people need to play devil's advocate for their own ideas more frequently and anticipate the opposition points before the opposition gets to exploit that weakness. It seems like this is a regular political flub. I didn't mean to imply anything about that particular situation, more about considering downstream consequences and predicting opposition talking points.

I think Sanders isn't interested in the details of a program.  He's just trying to roll out big bold plans.  I like Kamala's because it seems like she thought of it in a few different ways.  
Regarding the max rate, every state has usury rates today.  Where it goes haywire is in the 'effective apr'.  This is the part of the truth in lending statement that includes fees as part of the cost of credit.  Payday lending has very short term loans, with high fees.  So while the actual interest rate may be 25%, when including the fees on a short term, they can be over 100% effective apr easily. 

Meltdown99

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

New proposal from Kamela.  I like it.  I also think it's feasible since companies can adjust for merit and tenure.  Second, using a third party certification process is a great idea.  I'm sure SHRM-CP and similar companies will dig it too.  Thoughts?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/equal-pay-kamala-harris_n_5ce18f8de4b09e0578061ac4

I like this a lot. She seems to be thinking pretty globally in terms of the impacts and how they'll be mitigated or how they can be used to support the idea.

Exactly.  Sanders and AOC rolled out that max interest rate of 15% for credit proposal last week.  It was clear to me that they had not thought one minute about how badly that will actually hurt the underserved/poor consumers in this country.  The unintended consequences have already been seen with previous regulation.  Harris's seems to be well thought out and she likely consulted from both perspectives.  Good for her.  Plus it isn't out to destroy a specific company.  

So credit card companies cannot thrive at 15% interest?  Or do they need to charge high interest because the poor/underserved are more likely to be late with payments/default...so if interest rates are capped they would be unlikely to give credit to people with low income?  If this means less credit to people with low income, then this could be a good thing. 

Yes, you're correct.  You can't loan to an underserved/high risk customer at 15%, so you won't lend them money.  In 2009, the Card Act was rolled out and that capped the fees on credit cards.  Without the fees, major banks could not make the numbers work, so they exited the market.  IN their place popped up payday lending which typically falls below the radar of the CFPB, OCC and other regulators.  People with poor credit were forced to go there, which was not better for them.  

Regarding your second comment, it's not a good thing.  Because you can't earn or re-establish credit without borrowing.  And without the ability to borrow you can't: buy a car, buy a house, rent a vehicle, pay for unforeseen repairs, etc.  It's actually a really bad thing at the micro level, but it also stunts economic growth in the economy at the macro level.  

I now realize my 2nd question was not well thought out.  CC's are the easiest way for young people to establish a credit history.

mrussel1

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

New proposal from Kamela.  I like it.  I also think it's feasible since companies can adjust for merit and tenure.  Second, using a third party certification process is a great idea.  I'm sure SHRM-CP and similar companies will dig it too.  Thoughts?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/equal-pay-kamala-harris_n_5ce18f8de4b09e0578061ac4

I like this a lot. She seems to be thinking pretty globally in terms of the impacts and how they'll be mitigated or how they can be used to support the idea.

Exactly.  Sanders and AOC rolled out that max interest rate of 15% for credit proposal last week.  It was clear to me that they had not thought one minute about how badly that will actually hurt the underserved/poor consumers in this country.  The unintended consequences have already been seen with previous regulation.  Harris's seems to be well thought out and she likely consulted from both perspectives.  Good for her.  Plus it isn't out to destroy a specific company.  

So credit card companies cannot thrive at 15% interest?  Or do they need to charge high interest because the poor/underserved are more likely to be late with payments/default...so if interest rates are capped they would be unlikely to give credit to people with low income?  If this means less credit to people with low income, then this could be a good thing. 

Yes, you're correct.  You can't loan to an underserved/high risk customer at 15%, so you won't lend them money.  In 2009, the Card Act was rolled out and that capped the fees on credit cards.  Without the fees, major banks could not make the numbers work, so they exited the market.  IN their place popped up payday lending which typically falls below the radar of the CFPB, OCC and other regulators.  People with poor credit were forced to go there, which was not better for them.  

Regarding your second comment, it's not a good thing.  Because you can't earn or re-establish credit without borrowing.  And without the ability to borrow you can't: buy a car, buy a house, rent a vehicle, pay for unforeseen repairs, etc.  It's actually a really bad thing at the micro level, but it also stunts economic growth in the economy at the macro level.  

I now realize my 2nd question was not well thought out.  CC's are the easiest way for young people to establish a credit history.

Yes, we've all had to pay our dues with high interest rates early in our lives, or when we slipped up on our bills.  All an interest rate is, is a measurement of the risk to loan someone money.  If you cap it at 15%, it will not only weed out underserved, but probably lower mid-prime as well, people who are at the 600-620 credit scores.  That's a lot of people.  It's why some of these economic proposals are so frustrating to me.  They are not helping the poor in this country at all; they are almost prejudicial.  

Lerxst1992

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Seth Myers points out Biden being wrong:

https://youtu.be/kQiMdZJBRI8

Lord Biden is never wrong.