Election 2020

[Bernie Brewer]

What do the banking industry folks here think of Bernie and AOC introducing legislation to limit credit card interest to 15% and kill the predatory payday lender industry by re-introducing postal service banking? I'm curious to hear from Bernie Brewer and Revo especially.

Second question: do you think voters will prefer Bernie's message on debt enslavement, or Biden's history as the Delaware banking industry stooge? Hmm, I guess we shall wait and see, eh? I like Bernie's chances.

First off, the guy is the video is incorrect on several fronts, but I have no idea who he is, so I would just say, there are much better videos avaiable that explain consumer debt and credit cards.

While the term "Banker" isn't as generic as say "Doctor," its still a fairly generic term. There are Investment Bankers, Commercial (consumer) Bankers, Mortgage Bankers, Ag Bankers, etc. There are different types of "banking" charters; commercial banks, savings and loans/thrifts and credit unions. There are many different types of finance companies, including commercial, consumer, auto, medical, etc. I suppose you can include any one of these industries in the general phrase "banking industry," but I wouldn't.

I suppose you could include the Pay Day Lenders in the "bankers" catch all, but, again, I certainly wouldn't want you to make that mistake. They are completely different animals from the stereotypical bankers I believe you are thinking of. There are many different types of bankers within each subset of those larger groups, such as the "Wall Street Bankers" and TBTF Bankers vs. community bankers and the George Bailey types, of which I consider myself. Having said all of that, I certainly can't speak for all "bankers" or the "banking industry" as a whole. I can only speak for myself and in general for my segment of the banking industry. Bankers in my world are more likely than not to be fiscal conservatives and capitalists. Therefore, one could conclude that Bernie and AOC aren't getting invited to a lot of parties in the commercial banking world, nor is Elizabeth Warren or any others clamoring for more regulation, of any type.

Most commercial/consumer bankers believe that our segment of the banking industry is over-regulated and we are paying for the sins of others from the past crisis. The regulations put in place to protect against fraud that was rampant in the early to mid 2000s didn't even impact those that caused the crisis.

As for capping interest rates on credit cards, I think revo was right on with his assessment what might happen, except, might is the wrong word. He is right that interest rates are based upon risk, not whatever they can get or squeeze out of the debtor. Popular misconception. The higher the risk the higher the rate paid. If you cap the rate, you WILL see credit turned off for those with marginal or poor credit histories, for low to moderate population groups, and people with no credit will find it difficult to build credit. It will have a dovetail impact on the mortgage industry, making it harder for first time homebuyers to qualify for mortgages. Credit cards are largely unsecured credit. Default on unsecured loans is typical three to four times as high as on secured loans. When talking about subprime credit cards vs general credit cards (subprime being even higher risk than typical) these default rates are twice those of standard card holders. The higher the risk, the higher the rate, the potential for higher returns.

Pay Day/Car Title lenders are whole different can of worms. Most bankers in my world see them as them as scourge to consumers and give an even worse name to all of us in the consumer lending world. You could outlaw payday lending and wouldn't blink an eye. Its always all about educating the customer. If a Pay Day borrower is educated to know the pitfalls of doing this type of borrowing, they could keep the lenders from gouging them.

[revo]

Montana Gov. Steve Bullock becomes the 22nd Dem to throw his (cowboy?) hat into the ring.

[Teenwolf]

First off, the guy is the video is incorrect on several fronts, but I have no idea who he is, so I would just say, there are much better videos avaiable that explain consumer debt and credit cards.

While the term "Banker" isn't as generic as say "Doctor," its still a fairly generic term. There are Investment Bankers, Commercial (consumer) Bankers, Mortgage Bankers, Ag Bankers, etc. There are different types of "banking" charters; commercial banks, savings and loans/thrifts and credit unions. There are many different types of finance companies, including commercial, consumer, auto, medical, etc. I suppose you can include any one of these industries in the general phrase "banking industry," but I wouldn't.

I suppose you could include the Pay Day Lenders in the "bankers" catch all, but, again, I certainly wouldn't want you to make that mistake. They are completely different animals from the stereotypical bankers I believe you are thinking of. There are many different types of bankers within each subset of those larger groups, such as the "Wall Street Bankers" and TBTF Bankers vs. community bankers and the George Bailey types, of which I consider myself. Having said all of that, I certainly can't speak for all "bankers" or the "banking industry" as a whole. I can only speak for myself and in general for my segment of the banking industry. Bankers in my world are more likely than not to be fiscal conservatives and capitalists. Therefore, one could conclude that Bernie and AOC aren't getting invited to a lot of parties in the commercial banking world, nor is Elizabeth Warren or any others clamoring for more regulation, of any type.

Most commercial/consumer bankers believe that our segment of the banking industry is over-regulated and we are paying for the sins of others from the past crisis. The regulations put in place to protect against fraud that was rampant in the early to mid 2000s didn't even impact those that caused the crisis.

As for capping interest rates on credit cards, I think revo was right on with his assessment what might happen, except, might is the wrong word. He is right that interest rates are based upon risk, not whatever they can get or squeeze out of the debtor. Popular misconception. The higher the risk the higher the rate paid. If you cap the rate, you WILL see credit turned off for those with marginal or poor credit histories, for low to moderate population groups, and people with no credit will find it difficult to build credit. It will have a dovetail impact on the mortgage industry, making it harder for first time homebuyers to qualify for mortgages. Credit cards are largely unsecured credit. Default on unsecured loans is typical three to four times as high as on secured loans. When talking about subprime credit cards vs general credit cards (subprime being even higher risk than typical) these default rates are twice those of standard card holders. The higher the risk, the higher the rate, the potential for higher returns.

Pay Day/Car Title lenders are whole different can of worms. Most bankers in my world see them as them as scourge to consumers and give an even worse name to all of us in the consumer lending world. You could outlaw payday lending and wouldn't blink an eye. Its always all about educating the customer. If a Pay Day borrower is educated to know the pitfalls of doing this type of borrowing, they could keep the lenders from gouging them.

Thanks for the detailed response.

I wonder about credit lending. I feel like you could only introduce a bill like this after you've instituted Med4All, as the #1 cause of bankruptcy is medical expenses. So at least if you take away that aspect, you're not limiting people from getting medical care. The other major factors are minimum wage and free college. The $1.3 Tn student debtload has already impacted the housing market, as people are sidelined from the market by their student debts into their 40's and beyond. So if you take away that burden, it flushes more money into the economy. Finally, no more sub-$15/hr wages. I've had jobs the last few years making under $15/hr and it's just not right or moral. Its demeaning.

So if Bernie were to introduce the type of conditions that wouldn't endanger people by limiting their access to credit, I would support it. But I need more details as to how this problem would be addressed.

Interestingly, economic populist and manchild goon, Tucker Carlson agrees with the Bernie/AOC proposal.

By the way, this host is a founder of Justice Democrats, the group that found candidates like AOC and the other progressives. He knows his stuff.

[nots]

Montana Gov. Steve Bullock becomes the 22nd Dem to throw his (cowboy?) hat into the ring.

An excellent choice for moderates who have reservations about Biden. Has gotten elected statewide in a red state 3x. Solid executive experience, very pragmatic. I will be interested to see if he can gain any traction.

[revo]

Mark Cuban just floated out the possibility that he too may run as a third-party candidate.

[Kevin Seitzer]

What Joe Biden Is Teaching Democrats about Democrats
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/what-joe-biden-is-teaching-democrats-about-democrats.htmI

[revo]

What Joe Biden Is Teaching Democrats about Democrats
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/what-joe-biden-is-teaching-democrats-about-democrats.htmI

Kind of like fantasy players being a couple of years ahead on a prospect.

[Teenwolf]

Biden endorses a middle ground approach on climate change... what's the middle ground between A) we need to act quickly, and B) we need to subsidize our fossil fuel donors? Is the middle ground do nothing? He says he wants to re-introduce fuel economy metrics on new cars... well, he didn't say it, his environmental policy advisor and former natural gas company executive explained it, but yeah, Republicans are gonna love that! 92% of Republicans approve of Trump, but let's make a deal Joe is gonna win them back by forcing big government regulations on industry at a cost to the consumer.... brilliant plan, uncle Joe. That will win back the midwest! More importantly, that will turn out the millenials who stayed home for Hillary, right?

https://readsludge.com/2019/05/10/bi...l-gas-company/

Biden is the only surefire loser for Dems, he ain't winning over MAGAts. With the Mueller investigation flopping, Trump looks unstoppable unless unlikely voters turn out en masse. Bernie is the answer to drive unlikely voter turnout. That's why he always does better at the ballot box than the polls, unlikely voters aren't counted in polling.

Biden also looking to unify around a Biden/Harris ticket, which I fear could easily pull a combined 50% at the convention and superdelegates would support that ticket. Even if they each had 23 and 28, and Bernie had 40, they would promote that ticket. But I fear Warren and Yang and Tulsi pull from Bernie's vote share enough to keep him under 40%, leaving the only unity ticket to 2 centrists... but maybe centrists will split their votes enough that they don't have 2 over 50% combined. Long way to the finish line. Debates will start to clarify things.

[Sour Masher]

I am looking forward to the debates. There are so many candidates, I fear some will get lost in the shuffle. I continue to be fascinated by the odd coalition of support Gabbard enjoys among libertarian leaning moderates and progressives. I find her candor refreshing and her perspectives valuable to the party's conversations about itself and its future. I also think she would be one of the candidates who it would be very difficult for Trump to label dismissively and bully and belittle. What nickname would he come up with for her? In what ways would he alienate her from the libteratian leaning members of his voting base?

Here is a clip from a recent interview with Rogan where she talks about her frustration with partisanship:

[nots]

I am looking forward to the debates. There are so many candidates, I fear some will get lost in the shuffle. I continue to be fascinated by the odd coalition of support Gabbard enjoys among libertarian leaning moderates and progressives. I find her candor refreshing and her perspectives valuable to the party's conversations about itself and its future. I also think she would be one of the candidates who it would be very difficult for Trump to label dismissively and bully and belittle. What nickname would he come up with for her? In what ways would he alienate her from the libteratian leaning members of his voting base?

Here is a clip from a recent interview with Rogan where she talks about her frustration with partisanship:

She is (IMO) a very thoughtful, credible person who would easily defeat Trump. There is a certain genuineness that many of the other candidates lack and I think it comes across well whenever I see her speak. Sadly, she has as much chance of getting the nomination as I do, but I remain hopeful that if one of the guys gets the nomination, she could be the VP to balance the ticket (which is insulting in its own way, because she is much more than a prop). Imagine having an actual anti-interventionist with a military background having the President’s ear.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Good clip of Gabbard. Thanks for sharing.

[revo]

Latest poll, battleground state of Pennsylvania. Trump beat Hillary by 0.7% in 2016, so this turnaround is yuuuge:

Quinnipiac:

Biden 53%, Trump 42% - Biden + 11
Sanders 50%, Trump 43% - Sanders +7
Warren 47%, Trump 44% - Warren +3
Buttigieg 45%, Trump 44% - Mayor Pete +1
Harris 45%, Trump 45% - Tie
Trump 46%, O'Rourke 44% - Trump +2

[nots]

Latest poll, battleground state of Pennsylvania. Trump beat Hillary by 0.7% in 2016, so this turnaround is yuuuge:

Quinnipiac:

Biden 53%, Trump 42% - Biden + 11
Sanders 50%, Trump 43% - Sanders +7
Warren 47%, Trump 44% - Warren +3
Buttigieg 45%, Trump 44% - Mayor Pete +1
Harris 45%, Trump 45% - Tie
Trump 46%, O'Rourke 44% - Trump +2

Much bigger story is the Pa Democratic poll:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary-6860.html

[revo]

Using 270towin.com, and using the Sabato Crystal Ball settings, we have a scenario where:
- PA & MI are leaning Dem
- OH & FL are leaning GOP

That's 264 ECs for Dems, 248 for GOP.

So the '20 election, if it plays out this way, will boil down to the GOP needing to possibly take all three of NH, AZ & WI to pull out the win.

Last polls from each (Trump vs. Biden and Sanders), from 538.com:
NH - Biden +10, Sanders +10 (Feb 23rd)
AZ - Biden + 5, Sanders -9 (May 7th)
WI - Biden +10, Sanders +7 (April 24th)

And this is, as OneJay says, already with a great economy and low unemployment baked in for the incumbent.

[Teenwolf]

New Emerson National poll shows Biden 33% to Sanders 25%. Age range is much more even, with 46% under 50.

So I would say that Biden has a realistic 5-10 pt lead. Certainly not crushing it, and will need to avoid his gaffes, and dance around his problematic past issues, and cling to Obama nostalgia for nearly a year. Good luck. Making deals with Republicans worked so well for his VP years... remember Obama and Biden constantly saying "the fever will break" and Republicans would come to the table to compromise? How did that work the first time? How's the supreme court looking? Who would Biden nominate to appease Republicans?

I think the part of Obama people want most is a calm and intelligent, moral President with the charisma to convey that calm and empathy. Not many boxes checked for Biden. That's why Joe has been showcasing his emotional qualities, constantly talking about his grieving for his loved ones, while saying that he literally doesn't have time to explain his health care position. It will get old quick, and on the Obama scale of charisma as a public speaker, Biden rates well below Obama. 12 debates is a lot of talking he needs to do while keeping his foot out of his mouth. I don't believe he can make it through such a long campaign.

Here's a video that goes into detail on the age range discrepancy between polls: