2020 Democratic Nominee

[RomaVicta 29781]

Our prison system and post prison programs (such as the are) are an international disgrace and a domestic disaster. 

Sadly, you can't really make it a campaign issue because Americans think prison rape is funny and punishment should be unending. Makes us all feel really tough.

BTW I've enjoyed the discussion about the importance of how a campaign is run in picking a candidate. Not sure where I stand on that, but it has been interesting. There may be value in focusing on the horse race more than the horses.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

lol Maddow is going to try to savage him for him calling her out during the debates

(Bernie was right, of course)

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Page 153

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/al25duedar/econTabReport.pdf

[Js1 85104]

LOL Marianne. BdB. Biden. 

[Fozzz 152]

41 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

There is no way Maddow makes it through this interview without at least implying that Bernie is a Putin Puppet.  

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, Fozzz said:

There is no way Maddow makes it through this interview without at least implying that Bernie is a Putin Puppet.  

Hugo gonna have 15 orgasms

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Hopefully she asks him some Russia questions. No one else does. 

That goes for all the candidates. 

[Fozzz 152]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hopefully she asks him some Russia questions. No one else does. 

That goes for all the candidates. 

I'm sure she'll ask him why voted against the Russian and Iran sanctions bill, because libs hate Putin but fucking love war.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

DRAG HIS ASS, LIZ!

lol this guy

 

[6th Street 6357]

Tom Steyer is a solid dude. Started Farallon and ran it for many years, and is now a big time philanthropist. Lot of focus on the environment. 

[Hank Kingsley 20681]

Kamala trying to find new and interesting ways to fuck over poor people. 

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Everyone in this race who isn't Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders is entirely fucking useless.

[Prepuce of Doom 20985]

Worth clicking.

Booker is spot-on. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Kamala trying to find new and interesting ways to fuck over poor people. 

 

Wtf?  This is a terrible idea. Is she trying to make up with Biden or something? 

[David Dennison 18655]

Well, there goes any chance of supporting Kamala Harris.

It's down to Liz, Bernie, or Pete.

But really just Liz.

[troph 24562]

Wtf?  This is a terrible idea. Is she trying to make up with Biden or something? 

I think the intent is those bills aren’t missed like credit cards so conceivably credit scores would be higher.

[Js1 85104]

9 minutes ago, troph said:

I think the intent is those bills aren’t missed like credit cards so conceivably credit scores would be higher.

Right. There have been pilot programs that showed including rent/utility payments (proportionally Lower income earners, minorities and under 30, aka, credit invisible Americans) raised credit scores by 20-40 points. 

[LonghornJudas 1090]

11 minutes ago, troph said:

I think the intent is those bills aren’t missed like credit cards so conceivably credit scores would be higher.

So, artificially increase credit scores so people can borrow more money that they can’t pay back? Wouldn’t that just empower lenders to be somewhat more predatory?

[Js1 85104]

Someone who pays rent and their phone and light bill every month, on time, isn’t good enough to get a loan? Why? It should factor into that decision just as much as income to monthly expense ratio would  

Maybe they are credit card averse. Not everyone is the points guy. An estimated 26 million Americans Are credit invisible. And they are predominantly poor, black and Hispanic. 

[LonghornJudas 1090]

I don’t have a problem if they want to add these in as contributing data, but that’s a minor part of the article IMO.

What’s really being discussed here Is the proposal of $100B being set aside for closing costs and down payments (up to $25,000 per family). Now, I have questions on the legality of that proposal because it specially says “black families”, but that’s also not my point.

I simply fear for whatever groups will eventually be included because they’re likely to be lower income, and lesser educated, and once something like this gets passed, these people are going to be targeted and lenders are going to whatever they can to get a piece of that pie. So, what’s going to accompany these proposals to prevent any predatory lending?

Edited July 11, 2019 by LonghornJudas

[LonghornJudas 1090]

Actually, this link has more info on it and it looks like this will all be administered through HUD.

https://www.curbed.com/2019/7/8/20686095/kamala-harris-homeownership-plan-2020-election-democratic-primary

[Js1 85104]

 

[elfenix 34171]

9 hours ago, LonghornJudas said:

So, artificially increase credit scores so people can borrow more money that they can’t pay back? Wouldn’t that just empower lenders to be somewhat more predatory?

artificially?  the whole thing is made up to begin with. 

[Rougarou 594]

9 hours ago, Js1 said:

Someone who pays rent and their phone and light bill every month, on time, isn’t good enough to get a loan? Why?

Because these things are more or less secured by a service that is necessary for most people to live in society; if you don't pay rent you become homeless, if you don't pay phone, you get it cut off and same with light.

Maybe more importantly, paying the basic utilities (and I'd consider internet a basic utility, a conversation for another day) could be a data point as I think you are suggesting, but because those are going to be the first things paid you really need the biggest influencer of creditworthiness in those situations to be able to see if after those bills are paid, is there any money left over to pay the loan. I think you will find a lot of people who can't get loans can't get them because once those bills they pay on time are paid, there isn't a lot of money left over and so unsecured debt is triaged as less important--and rightfully so to those people.

Verifying income and seeing if someone can realistically afford to service the debt by looking at current debt load and active income should still be the main consideration as taking out a loand should be a basic math equation, but sure add the light bill and phone bill as minor data points that can help people push their credit score from 618 to the minimum threshold of 620 or whatever the decision points are.

Edited July 11, 2019 by Rougarou

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

 

Bernie does poorly with wealthy/highly-educated voters vs. those other three. Yep.

(Bernie remains in 2nd place in that poll using the usual voter selection model. This is just taking one (very narrow) slice of the overall group polled.)

Edited July 11, 2019 by bad_teammate

[BradInATX 9208]

37 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Because these things are more or less secured by a service that is necessary for most people to live in society; if you don't pay rent you become homeless, if you don't pay phone, you get it cut off and same with light.

Maybe more importantly, paying the basic utilities (and I'd consider internet a basic utility, a conversation for another day) could be a data point as I think you are suggesting, but because those are going to be the first things paid you really need the biggest influencer of creditworthiness in those situations to be able to see if after those bills are paid, is there any money left over to pay the loan. I think you will find a lot of people who can't get loans can't get them because once those bills they pay on time are paid, there isn't a lot of money left over and so unsecured debt is triaged as less important--and rightfully so to those people.

Verifying income and seeing if someone can realistically afford to service the debt by looking at current debt load and active income should still be the main consideration as taking out a loand should be a basic math equation, but sure add the light bill and phone bill as minor data points that can help people push their credit score from 618 to the minimum threshold of 620 or whatever the decision points are.

Paying a mortgage or a car payment are also necessary to live in society for most people, and those weigh into your credit score. What's the difference? People who rent are paying a monthly sum to put a roof over their head, same as people who have a mortgage. Letting the mortgage bump your credit score up and not letting rent do it seems regressive and punitive for people with less money. It's something that I've never even thought about, but I'm glad she brought it up to at least get a discussion started around it.

A handful of people jumping all over this without actually looking into it (IE as js1 said, pilots have shown this actually helps people) is a microcosm of both politics today and why we end up with shitty people running our cities states and country. Everything is Twitter. "Reads 2 paragraphs, immediately assumes Kamala hates poor people". Did anyone who immediately freaked out about it actually look into it, attempt to understand her reasoning, etc.? I mean I already know the answer but I'm trying to be judicious here.

Edited July 11, 2019 by BradInATX

[Patrick Bateman 3903]

Nate Silver weighs in, basically a 3 candidate race the rest of the way, in his opinion.

 

Edited July 11, 2019 by Patrick Bateman

[Mojo Hand 4580]

15 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Paying a mortgage or a car payment are also necessary to live in society for most people, and those weigh into your credit score. What's the difference? People who rent are paying a monthly sum to put a roof over their head, same as people who have a mortgage. Letting the mortgage bump your credit score up and not letting rent do it seems regressive and punitive for people with less money. It's something that I've never even thought about, but I'm glad she brought it up to at least get a discussion started around it.

A handful of people jumping all over this without actually looking into it (IE as js1 said, pilots have shown this actually helps people) is a microcosm of both politics today and why we end up with shitty people running our cities states and country. Everything is Twitter. "Reads 2 paragraphs, immediately assumes Kamala hates poor people". Did anyone who immediately freaked out about it actually look into it, attempt to understand her reasoning, etc.? I mean I already know the answer but I'm trying to be judicious here.

I'd support measures to help people get their first credit cards or mortgages without much credit history, to allow people a chance to build credit.    But giving landlords the power to destroy your credit score sends chills down my spine.   And for people who aren't financially ready to take out a credit line, I don't see how it would be helpful to ding them for late rental or utility payments.  It seems to me it would strangle their credit scores in the womb. 

[BradInATX 9208]

10 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I'd support measures to help people get their first credit cards or mortgages without much credit history, to allow people a chance to build credit.    But giving landlords the power to destroy your credit score sends chills down my spine.   And for people who aren't financially ready to take out a credit line, I don't see how it would be helpful to ding them for late rental or utility payments.  It seems to me it would strangle their credit scores in the womb. 

Those are some good points. Would it really be "giving power to landlords to destroy your score", though? I mean I assume there'd be a process to contest claims by a landlord, if they falsely accuse you of not paying your rent. Assuming that something like that is in place, it's no different than attaching mortgage payments to your score.

I definitely see some danger in allowing renters to mess up their score. That could be one of the unintended consequences of a good idea. To play devil's advocate:
- I'd think a lot of people who rent probably don't have much credit at all, which sucks. So do we help more people by giving people who pay rent on-time some meat on their credit report, or do we hurt more people who struggle financially and would get dinged because of this? I don't know the answer, would need to see some data. My gut says more people pay their rent consistently than not, but policy needs to be fact-based.

- Agree with your idea on the credit cards. I can relate to this because in my mid-20s I was in a situation where I was a responsible rent and bill payer, but had no credit cards so basically zero credit history except for my car payment, I guess. To work towards getting a mortgage I had to go through a multi-year process of opening credit cards, store accounts, etc. All of the credit cards were secured - so I probably had to tie up close to a grand in security deposits on those cards to get them. I was able to do it without much hardship, but that's not the case for a lot of people. It'd be nice if they could get access to better cards than a shitty $200 secured Capital One card based off of rent/bill history. 

Speaking of, I still have those cards (just to keep my average account age up). Wonder if I can get that money back now, since the cards have like 20x the credit line now, all unsecured except for my original deposit. Huh. Good talk.

Edited July 11, 2019 by BradInATX

[Mojo Hand 4580]

12 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Those are some good points. Would it really be "giving power to landlords to destroy your score", though? I mean I assume there'd be a process to contest claims by a landlord, if they falsely accuse you of not paying your rent. Assuming that something like that is in place, it's no different than attaching mortgage payments to your score.

I definitely see some danger in allowing renters to mess up their score. That could be one of the unintended consequences of a good idea. To play devil's advocate:
- I'd think a lot of people who rent probably don't have much credit at all, which sucks. So do we help more people by giving people who pay rent on-time some meat on their credit report, or do we hurt more people who struggle financially and would get dinged because of this? I don't know the answer, would need to see some data. My gut says more people pay their rent consistently than not, but policy needs to be fact-based.

- Agree with your idea on the credit cards. I can relate to this because in my mid-20s I was in a situation where I was a responsible rent and bill payer, but had no credit cards so basically zero credit history except for my car payment, I guess. To work towards getting a mortgage I had to go through a multi-year process of opening credit cards, store accounts, etc. All of the credit cards were secured - so I probably had to tie up close to a grand in security deposits on those cards to get them. I was able to do it without much hardship, but that's not the case for a lot of people. It'd be nice if they could get access to better cards than a shitty $200 secured Capital One card based off of rent/bill history. 

Speaking of, I still have those cards (just to keep my average account age up). Wonder if I can get that money back now, since the cards have like 20x the credit line now, all unsecured except for my original deposit. Huh. Good talk.

With landlords, I'm particularly worried not about them threatening false reports, but promising not to file true reports of late payment in exchange for something.  I'm all for hearings on this, but my gut says this is exactly the type of bipartisan bank-friendly shit that gets passed with the promise of helping people but really fucks them over.   I mean, the entire approach is framed around giving banks more relevant information to make accurate credit assessments, rather than forcing banks to take somewhat greater risks on people (or the government covering those risks).   That is a very Republican/uniparty approach. 

Edited July 11, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[Mojo Hand 4580]

And to be clear, I haven't studied the legislation in any detail, I'm just going off the general idea recounted in the news.  So maybe my initial reaction is misguided, I'll have to read more. 

[BradInATX 9208]

4 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

With landlords, I'm particularly worried not about them threatening false reports, but promising not to file true reports of late payment in exchange for something.  I'm all for hearings on this, but my gut says this is exactly the type of bipartisan bank-friendly shit that gets passed with the promise of helping people but really fucks them over.   I mean, the entire approach is framed around giving banks more relevant information to make accurate credit assessments, rather than forcing banks to take somewhat greater risks on people.   That is a very Republican/uniparty approach. 

Good call on landlords holding out on-time payment reports. Didn't consider that. You could also run into non-malicious situations where a landlord who, say, just has one house they manage, doesn't report them because of time/forgetfulness/whatever. You'd need a lot of structure around it. 

I see what they're trying to do though, and there might be ways to make it work. There is definitely a problem where people who have essentially "blank" credit don't have access to certain things. And that is a regressive problem that hits poor or undereducated people. The concept seems noble, though it may need to be refined down more. Maybe the renter could self-report, and the credit bureaus would have to accept that, barring a dispute by the landlord. Shrug. I'm not paid to make those decisions, but it seems noble and close enough to target to be worth exploring.

" I mean, the entire approach is framed around giving banks more relevant information to make accurate credit assessments, rather than forcing banks to take somewhat greater risks on people"

Wasn't legislation that relaxed standards on mortgages (and yeah, this was a both party thing) what caused the last market crash? 

Edited July 11, 2019 by BradInATX

[LonghornJudas 1090]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Good call on landlords holding out on-time payment reports. Didn't consider that. You could also run into non-malicious situations where a landlord who, say, just has one house they manage, doesn't report them because of time/forgetfulness/whatever. You'd need a lot of structure around it. 

I see what they're trying to do though, and there might be ways to make it work. There is definitely a problem where people who have essentially "blank" credit don't have access to certain things. The concept seems noble, though it may need to be refined down more. Maybe the renter could self-report, and the credit bureaus would have to accept that, barring a dispute by the landlord. Shrug. I'm not paid to make those decisions, but it seems noble and close enough to target to be worth exploring.

As one of the articles points out, utility companies normally don't even report issues until many many months have been missed. Would this mean that they would now be reporting more often, resulting in more hits on the credit? Like you guys, I see a noble cause here, but there could be unintended consequences in the effort.

Quite frankly, what I would love to see is legislation that allows these same people access to free financial planning and money management resources. I believe this could go a very long way in helping families and individuals grow/improve their credit and encourage saving money along the way. Just a thought.

[NowThis 931]

reporting of rents is such a cumbersome project, involving probably tens of millions of properties and subject to malicious abuse by landlords.  Best to drop this idea completely.  I had 2 rental props for a decade and never ran a credit check , never had a late payment.  Just asked them if they had a job and what they did for a living, never asked for income either. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[David Dennison 18655]

It's on.

[bad_teammate 13132]

She's good.

[troph 24562]

12 hours ago, LonghornJudas said:

So, artificially increase credit scores so people can borrow more money that they can’t pay back? Wouldn’t that just empower lenders to be somewhat more predatory?

or to make it easier for qualified people to obtain home loans and the like - I focused on credit cards but what about folks that don't have any credit. look I dunno, just trying to understand the position.

[horncyclist 1386]

1 minute ago, troph said:

or to make it easier for qualified people to obtain home loans and the like - I focused on credit cards but what about folks that don't have any credit. look I dunno, just trying to understand the position.

The credit rating system is pretty fucked up and in need of  greater oversight and regulation. When my wife and I bought our first home, I boosted our scores 100-150 points just moving debt around. Most people don't have that ability or knowledge that they can do it but it doesn't make them any less credit worthy. There's also been a cottage industry spring up around manipulating scores similar to what I did. People rely on that for guidance to improve scores but then the ratings companies can change the formulas on whim. It's definitely another source of inequity in our lives economic system.

[Alvin89 108]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Probe Trump "Abuse."     Will she also probe the abuse by presidents before Trump?

[horncyclist 1386]

8 minutes ago, Alvin89 said:

Probe Trump "Abuse."     Will she also probe the abuse by presidents before Trump?

Presidents before didn't separate kids from their parents on a mass scale or treat legitimate asylum seekers like animals. If they did, yeah let's look at that. But they didn't. Trump did and do so by violating the law. 

Edited July 11, 2019 by horncyclist

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, horncyclist said:

Presidents before didn't separate kids from their parents on a mass scale or treat legitimate asylum seekers like animals. If they did, yeah let's look at that. But they didn't. Trump did and do so by violating the law. 

They didn't treat them like animals?  That would be news to the immigration attorneys actually helping these people.

Quote

The reality is that family detention—the practice of detaining entire family units in special centers designed just for them—is not new. For years, immigrants’ rights advocates have pushed for an end to the practice, which existed during George W. Bush’s presidency and expanded dramatically under President Obama.

“They’re both horrible administrations that have abused thousands of children,” said Bryan Johnson, a lawyer who represents children held in detention.

Johnson represented a mother detained in Texas who wrote a suicide note before cutting her wrist. He told The Daily Beast that the Obama administration and Trump administration shared the same goal in their immigration policies: trying to discourage people fleeing violence from seeking asylum in the United States.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/thank-obama-for-trumps-child-detentions-immigrant-advocates-say

Lock Obungler up.  

[Alvin89 108]

6 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Presidents before didn't separate kids from their parents on a mass scale or treat legitimate asylum seekers like animals. If they did, yeah let's look at that. But they didn't. Trump did and do so by violating the law. 

 

He didn't try to help them much either.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/obama-administration-seeks-power-send-kids-back-across-border

Immigrant advocacy groups, already frustrated by Obama’s lack of executive action to ease record levels of deportations, immediately pounced on the administration’s decision.

“President Obama is asking Congress to change the law to enable the government to inflict expedited removal on unaccompanied children. That is simply unconscionable,” said Leslie A. Holman, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association .”No matter what you call it, rapid deportations without any meaningful hearing for children who are rightly afraid of the violence and turmoil from which they fled is wrong, and contradicts the fundamental values of this nation.”

[Mojo Hand 4580]

10 minutes ago, Alvin89 said:

Probe Trump "Abuse."     Will she also probe the abuse by presidents before Trump?

It's unclear.   Her actual proposal isn't limited to abuses under Trump, but it is framed as deterring future abuses during the remainder of the Trump era:

Create accountability for the abuse perpetrated during the Trump Era. 

President Trump and his Administration are comfortable looking the other way while criminal abuses of immigrants pile up. When I am President, I will not. I’ll designate a Justice Department task force to investigate accusations of serious violations — including medical neglect and physical and sexual assaults of detained immigrants — and give it independent authority to pursue any substantiated criminal allegations. Let there be no ambiguity on this: if you are violating the basic rights of immigrants, now or in the future, a Warren administration will hold you accountable.

[Huckleberry 32699]

The above posters are 100% correct that immigrants were badly mistreated under previous administrations as well. And those abuses should absolutely be investigated.

The bigger issue now is that the current President has weaponized that mistreatment, as Warren mentioned, and now 40% of the country is saying out loud and in public that such treatment is okay. At least the previous assholes had the decency to hide their behavior.

[Fozzz 152]

What do you mean by "weaponized"?  That the mistreatment is used as a deterrent to future asylum seekers?  Because that is also true of the previous administration.

[Huckleberry 32699]

Fair point, I was probably conflating two separate issues. Warren is probably referring to weaponizing deportation as a deterrent while I'm referring more to weaponizing the entire immigration topic domestically by rallying people to support mistreatment of immigrants.

[Alvin89 108]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/10/democrats-tweet-2014-photo-migrant-detention-facility/1695534001/