Hillary won more votes for President

Free said:

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.

Sure, no problem. Let me dissent from your framing of the issue for a second:
1. I'm not a banker. I understand banks and have done business with them, but I'm not one.
2. Banks and payday lenders are NOT the same. Banks provide checking accounts, mortgages, auto loans, HELOCs, CD's, etc. Payday lenders do not. And they typically receive their financing from private equity groups at high rates of interest. Banks borrow from other banks and from their customer's CD's and savings accounts to fund their lending. Please don't use them interchangeably. They are not the same. I could go into 20 other things that sets them apart, but hopefully not necessary.
3. The DNC is not attacking Warren. First off, Wasserman is acting in her capacity as a FL congresswoman, not as the chair of the DNC. There are no DNC resources being applied to this. That's a misrepresentation.
4. If a congressman (or woman) disagrees with the policy direction of fellow party senator, that's not 'attacking'. The articles you handed me are so chock full of overstated adjectives that I feel like I'm reading a Right Wing publication. This is precisely why I read multiple sources from every angle for an issue where I care.
5. The article calls rails about the existing FL regulations without exploring what they are and why they aren't working. The article is thin on details, but heavy on adjectives and hyperbole.

Bottom line, Payday lenders are POS. But I have no idea what Wasserman's motivation is here. And I sure as hell don't blindly support Warren just because she supports something. There is not nearly enough information in this article to form an opinion about Wasserman or her role. I know she is the big bad boogeyman to those on the far left now because of her role in the debates and support of HRC against Bernie.

But let me say it again to ensure there is no misunderstanding... Payday lenders are pieces of shit that engage in predatory lending, by and large. I don't have an issue with strong regulations on them.

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

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.

Sure, no problem. Let me dissent from your framing of the issue for a second:
1. I'm not a banker. I understand banks and have done business with them, but I'm not one.
2. Banks and payday lenders are NOT the same. Banks provide checking accounts, mortgages, auto loans, HELOCs, CD's, etc. Payday lenders do not. And they typically receive their financing from private equity groups at high rates of interest. Banks borrow from other banks and from their customer's CD's and savings accounts to fund their lending. Please don't use them interchangeably. They are not the same. I could go into 20 other things that sets them apart, but hopefully not necessary.
3. The DNC is not attacking Warren. First off, Wasserman is acting in her capacity as a FL congresswoman, not as the chair of the DNC. There are no DNC resources being applied to this. That's a misrepresentation.
4. If a congressman (or woman) disagrees with the policy direction of fellow party senator, that's not 'attacking'. The articles you handed me are so chock full of overstated adjectives that I feel like I'm reading a Right Wing publication. This is precisely why I read multiple sources from every angle for an issue where I care.
5. The article calls rails about the existing FL regulations without exploring what they are and why they aren't working. The article is thin on details, but heavy on adjectives and hyperbole.

Bottom line, Payday lenders are POS. But I have no idea what Wasserman's motivation is here. And I sure as hell don't blindly support Warren just because she supports something. There is not nearly enough information in this article to form an opinion about Wasserman or her role. I know she is the big bad boogeyman to those on the far left now because of her role in the debates and support of HRC against Bernie.

But let me say it again to ensure there is no misunderstanding... Payday lenders are pieces of shit that engage in predatory lending, by and large. I don't have an issue with strong regulations on them.

1. Some banks are in the business of pay day lending.
2. Banks agreed to hop on board with pay day lenders by allowing direct debits. If the money isn't in the account on pay backdate then back charge the account holder overdraft fees. It's fucking beautiful!

1. Which banks do payday lending? I'm not saying there are zero, I just can't think of any.
2. I'm not sure this is an indictment of banks as lots and lots of businesses connect through direct debits. If you give a company (payday) authority to debit your bank account on certain days of the month and it's not there, it's a fee. But that isn't relegated to only payday, it's most businesses that have structured payments. Home Depot, Sears, Springleaf, etc. It's not unusual. Should the banks be in business of denying their customer the right to provide another company direct debit access?

JC29856 said:

WF BoA US bank JP PNC
The next answers are complicated...I can't get into it now. Your last question is akin to me asking this...should Sears home depot and Macy's charge up to 200% interest. I'll answer later thou but its technical.
Responsiblelending.org has alot of info.

Those banks exited short term loans in early 2014. The OCC put them on notice that the effective interest rates (when you factor fees + interest rate) was possibly usurious.

My point on #2 is that I'm not sure a Bank should take away a consumer's choice as to who they share their bank account information with. That seems a little too 'nanny' state for me.

JC29856 said:

It's technical...should have its own thread if you so desire.

I don't. I have no passion to defend Payday loans, direct debits or usurious behavior. Everything I said to Free still stands. I don't like the CFPB, not because we don't need a consumer protection vehicle (although we have a few already), but because they are fairly incompetent in my view. And that Wasserman-Shultz is acting in her capacity of a FL congresswoman, not DNC chairperson when fighting the new regulations that the CFPB seeks to implement.

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/ive-never-voted-for-a-democrat-ben-stein-flips-support-to-hillary-and-bernie-because-of-trump/

Interesting....going to be a lot of this

I definitely think there will be crossover voting. Educated moderates who might lean Romney, in the suburbs, etc., some women that would lean GOP, may make the switch. The question is whether maybe some union types (not leaders but rank and file) and traditional, older white Dems might go Trump. If there is a pretty even crossover, the map still favors a Dem.

There will be crossover voting for sure. Moderate GOP will head to Hillary. Dixiecrats and other racist dems will head to Trump, who is the new George Wallace. It will be interesting to watch.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/02/donald-trump-and-the-rise-of-the-new-dixiecrats.html

Gern Blansten said:

jeffbr said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/ive-never-voted-for-a-democrat-ben-stein-flips-support-to-hillary-and-bernie-because-of-trump/

Interesting....going to be a lot of this

I definitely think there will be crossover voting. Educated moderates who might lean Romney, in the suburbs, etc., some women that would lean GOP, may make the switch. The question is whether maybe some union types (not leaders but rank and file) and traditional, older white Dems might go Trump. If there is a pretty even crossover, the map still favors a Dem.

There will be crossover voting for sure. Moderate GOP will head to Hillary. Dixiecrats and other racist dems will head to Trump, who is the new George Wallace. It will be interesting to watch.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/02/donald-trump-and-the-rise-of-the-new-dixiecrats.html

It's unlikely that racist dems voted for Obama for the past two elections. Those aren't dems anymore.

I agree with this and why I think crossover will favor the Dems.

jeffbr said:

Gern Blansten said:

jeffbr said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/ive-never-voted-for-a-democrat-ben-stein-flips-support-to-hillary-and-bernie-because-of-trump/

Interesting....going to be a lot of this

I definitely think there will be crossover voting. Educated moderates who might lean Romney, in the suburbs, etc., some women that would lean GOP, may make the switch. The question is whether maybe some union types (not leaders but rank and file) and traditional, older white Dems might go Trump. If there is a pretty even crossover, the map still favors a Dem.

There will be crossover voting for sure. Moderate GOP will head to Hillary. Dixiecrats and other racist dems will head to Trump, who is the new George Wallace. It will be interesting to watch.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/02/donald-trump-and-the-rise-of-the-new-dixiecrats.html

It's unlikely that racist dems voted for Obama for the past two elections. Those aren't dems anymore.

Are you saying there are no more Dixiecrats or racist dems because of Obama? I'm not sure I understand. There are plenty of fundamentalist, evangelical, Southern Christian Democrats running around. They don't have the same power they used to in the party, and may be democrat in name only, but that's how they identify. A good example is that loony tunes Kim Davis (county clerk from Kentucky) who I believe recently turned rep, but was a dem when all of her BS went down. She's precisely the type who would vote Trump. They didn't all magically leave the party when Obama ran. They just didn't vote for him. If Trump gets the GOP nomination, there will be plenty in the GOP who are not Trump supporters, but who will continue to identify with the GOP and will vote GOP next presidential election cycle even if they don't during this one.

I think he's saying that those people may be registered as Dems, but they haven't voted for a Dem in years. So when comparing what we need in 2016 vs. 08/12, these people are not being counted upon anyway.