Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[David Dennison 18,946]

50 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

aoc.  She hates capitalism 

There's a lot to hate.

[RomaVicta 30,012]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

you seem take this very personally.  

Why did you answer? Shoe fit nicely, does it?

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

8 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I'm a boomer.

Sooner ?

[Incredulity 11,683]

20 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Sooner ?

You misspelled cunt

[jimmyjazz 46,124]

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Seems to me she’s trying to hold corporate America accountable for their lack of social responsibility.  She’s highlighting these private prisons and the banks that finance them behaving like sociopaths with zero liability for the damage they’re a big part of facilitating.

You can think that’s unfair and she’s going about it the wrong way but it is a point worth making. 

It might be a point worth making, but she didn't do a good job making it.

[zork 629]

When I pull credit for rental history for prospective tenants I also pull a state criminal history file from the credit agency I deal with .  So it is typically pulled at the same time but is a separate pull.  Like mentioned up thread, probably depends on what the person is applying for whether they pull the extended check for criminal.

 

Then a landlord has to stick with his/her rules.  X perfect credit score means X deposit.  xyz bad, bad, bad, means auto rejection.  with all the variables in between. etc etc etc

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,587]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Her questioning was retarded. If I’m Wells Fargo or JP Morgan and BP wants to do a bond deal (raise capital) to build more ships...you do your due diligence. Bankers likely check out the existing fleet, ask for designs on the new fleet, ask for reasons for expansion (replacing old ships, travel faster speeds, more demand, etc). They do that work. They make the loan.

BP's ship  has an oil spill. It costs billions. If you make JP Morgan responsible for the clean up it will cost them billions. They will turtle up and never lend to any similar project again. Can’t imagine the coupon on a BP bond before the spill but they probably borrowed pretty cheaply post QE. Maybe 2 or 3 handle. You know what that financing costs them if you make the underwriter responsible? Probably 2,3,4x. Which means BP doesn’t borrow, which means no one builds the ships, which means less steel demand which means less dudes making steel.

And why stop at the underwriter they don’t own the much of the loan? They allocate to big insurance guys and asset managers. Shouldn’t PIMCO, Blackrock, New York life be responsible too? They own the debt now?

The problem is she has no idea what the fuck she is talking about or how capital markets work nor the effect of penalizing those who make loans to finance projects.

Perhaps that is why she's asking questions. If I'm reading your explanation right, if taxpayers don't accept some of the costs of private business some of the time, less steel gets made. Is that an inaccurate description of what you're saying?

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

Just now, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Perhaps that is why she's asking questions. If I'm reading your explanation right, if taxpayers don't accept some of the costs of private business some of the time, less steel gets made. Is that an inaccurate description of what you're saying?

Liability goes to equity holders and their insurers.  Those are the private businesses accepting risk. Not lenders.  

If you loan me money to buy a car for my business, and an employee negligently runs someone over, you as the lender shouldn’t be liable.  The business and his insurer should be.  

Her take is bizarre. 

[Anastasis 23,484]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Liability goes to equity holders and their insurers.  Those are the private businesses accepting risk. Not lenders.  

If you loan me money to buy a car for my business, and an employee negligently runs someone over, you as the lender shouldn’t be liable.  The business and his insurer should be.  

Her take is bizarre. 

IRS not bizarre. It’s contrived. It was contrived to deploy rhetoric about pipelines and cages. It’s that simple. 

[Telegraph_it 3,359]

Probably should hold all the folks with checking accounts at WF liable too. 

[RomaVicta 30,012]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Sooner ?

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,587]

Right, but if the insurance is capped as standard business practice and is taken into account in the decision making process to make or not make the loan, then theoretically that cost is passed to taxpayers, right?

[workswithseed 2,110]

 

6 hours ago, elfenix said:

Depends on what the drug offense is. Like I said, at some point you're not going to be able to use innocent lienholder in defense of a CAF action. I'm not sure where that line is because I haven't done that work in 10 years and never lost one (stuff was all low level), but there's a line somewhere.

That just seems to make it harderer for a exconvict to change their life. I kinda see the line of thinking, but it just seems unnecessary.

Edited March 13, 2019 by workswithseed

[936horn 919]

Man some of the mental gymnastics defending every single faux pas and idiotic thing AOC says rivals the shit we see from the MAGA folks that everyone likes to bitch about. Wild.

[EMAWesome 101]

10 hours ago, Js1 said:

Super well known by Republicans. Boogy-woman 

3 outta 4 GOP know who she is 

4 out of 10 Democrats/Indies have no clue who this freshman House member from the Bronx is 

The last two years have pretty much convinced me 4 out of 10 Democrats have no clue about anything.

[Bash Riprock 1,695]

 

[Macanudo 13,011]

8 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Right, but if the insurance is capped as standard business practice and is taken into account in the decision making process to make or not make the loan, then theoretically that cost is passed to taxpayers, right?

Figured this was as good a post to put this.....   If taxpayers never have to pay for oopsies...    Why do we have Super Fund sites?

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,587]

That's sort of my point. The titans of capitalism are beneficiaries of the taxpayer provided "socialism" they demonize while trying to characterize the question of "how much" into a false idealogical binary choice of either/or. I'm not even saying taxpayers assisting business in reasonable measures is inherently a bad thing, but to point out the social contract that if you are helped, you are obliged to pitch in and not throw up some facade of total self-reliance.

[Biff Tannen 45,728]

Page 139 about a freshman rep.

[TwiceHorn 31,534]

28 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Figured this was as good a post to put this.....   If taxpayers never have to pay for oopsies...    Why do we have Super Fund sites?

Very true.  Most of those, not all, were discovered long after the polluters went out of business.  And the only lending practice that affected those, generally, was the refusal to lend to failing businesses.

Big banks deserve most of the shit they get, and a whole lot more, but not for their lending practices.  If all they did was lend money, they wouldn't be such a problem.

[Anastasis 23,484]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Page 139 about a freshman rep.

Serious question: How many freshman reps from either party get featured sessions at SXSW?

[hayden_horn 11,365]

10 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

It might be a point worth making, but she didn't do a good job making it.

i agree with this. she was clumsy, but i think her goal is clear: to make lenders think through the potential environmental (or other) ramifications of providing funding for a project. if lenders to a pipeline or an undersea well or whatever are thinking that they might bear some social responsibility for funding the project, then they might not. further, if congress could incentivize lending to green projects (or whatever), then that might have the result of lenders picking green new deal projects over more potentially dangerous and risky fossil fuel projects.

i don't necessarily agree with that idea, for the record, but i think, given her extremely liberal stance on these types of things, it makes sense.

[Zavala 1,384]

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i agree with this. she was clumsy, but i think her goal is clear: to make lenders think through the potential environmental (or other) ramifications of providing funding for a project. if lenders to a pipeline or an undersea well or whatever are thinking that they might bear some social responsibility for funding the project, then they might not. further, if congress could incentivize lending to green projects (or whatever), then that might have the result of lenders picking green new deal projects over more potentially dangerous and risky fossil fuel projects.

i don't necessarily agree with that idea, for the record, but i think, given her extremely liberal stance on these types of things, it makes sense.

 

[Enchubben 5,510]

56 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Page 139 about a freshman rep.

We also have 321 pages about aggies and the dumb shit they do.

[EuroHorn 3,268]

2 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

We also have 321 pages about aggies and the dumb shit they do.

good point.  she would fit right in with that thread.  a possible merge?

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

1 hour ago, Bash Riprock said:

 

[High Plains Drifter 11,052]

13 hours ago, GRHorn said:

💯

There’s so many slam dunks on Wells Fargo like money laundering, opening unwanted accounts for people and skating, but she had to try to score points related to her pet project and she comes out looking like a clueless amateur. 

And yet they are still in operation. Obviously not enough slam dunks yet. Keep piling on, I say.

[High Plains Drifter 11,052]

13 hours ago, Incredulity said:

That is a Shelia Jackson Lee, shit the bed, type performance. Undeniable.

Please. Hyperbole much?

[David Dennison 18,946]

11 minutes ago, EuroHorn said:

good point.  she would fit right in with that thread.  a possible merge?

Nah. We already have y'all to aggy things up in here.

[High Plains Drifter 11,052]

10 hours ago, Telegraph_it said:

Probably should hold all the folks with checking accounts at WF liable too. 

If you still have a checking account at WF after all the shit they've been doing, then yeah.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,587]

There's nothing wrong with calibrating regulations, incentives, and penalties to encourage preferred behavior, particularly when it applies to goddamn banks.

 

 

[tantric superman 4,667]

2 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

There's nothing wrong with calibrating regulations, incentives, and penalties to encourage preferred behavior, particularly when it applies to goddamn banks.

 

 

There is nothing wrong with creating reasonable policy making decision regarding such regulations.

We got it.  She's good at thought provocation. That was fun.  Time to clean up after the Democratic congressional victories, see that those victories (Republican seats switching to Dem) were primarily in moderate to conservative districts, and start coming up with ideas that appeal to that group. 

Dems only have a bit of time before the Republicans start pivoting away from crazy and there is a chance they capture. 

I want AOC on my side and I want her to throw out some ideas and then I want a pragmatist to implement the 10% of those ideas that are practical.

[Enchubben 5,510]

5 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

There's nothing wrong with calibrating regulations, incentives, and penalties to encourage preferred behavior, particularly when it applies to goddamn banks.

 

 

There are already penalties, incentives and regulations on the people that own/operate  these assets.

By imposing additional penalties, regulations, etc. on the lenders, wouldn’t they require higher rates on their financing to account for the higher risk? Those higher payments would then incurred by the owner and operator and are ultimately passed down to their customers. 

[wildcat09 29,379]

4 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

There is nothing wrong with creating reasonable policy making decision regarding such regulations.

We got it.  She's good at thought provocation. That was fun.  Time to clean up after the Democratic congressional victories, see that those victories (Republican seats switching to Dem) were primarily in moderate to conservative districts, and start coming up with ideas that appeal to that group. 

Dems only have a bit of time before the Republicans start pivoting away from crazy and there is a chance they capture. 

I want AOC on my side and I want her to throw out some ideas and then I want a pragmatist to implement the 10% of those ideas that are practical.

Pretty much this. I want her pointing out where the status quo improperly benefits certain people, or doesn't adequately protect the public, etc. I want someone else in charge of fixing the problems she points out.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

Just now, Enchubben said:

There are already penalties, incentives and regulations on the people that own/operate  these assets.

By imposing additional penalties, regulations, etc. on the lenders, wouldn’t they require higher rates on their financing to account for the higher risk? Those higher payments would then incurred by the owner and operator and are ultimately passed down to their customers. 

That part is never explained, wonder why ?

[936horn 919]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

That part is never explained, wonder why ?

In AOC's case it's probably due to lack of understanding.

[Foosters 17,885]

26 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

There are already penalties, incentives and regulations on the people that own/operate  these assets.

[hayden_horn 11,365]

56 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

I know you said you don’t necessarily agree with her idea, but I don’t think there is any way to NOT be clumsy when your point is that lending money for a common pipeline - or really anything in the fossil fuel industry at all - is some kind of social evil that society should consider punishing.  That’s a fringe environmentalist wackjob position in and of itself, without even considering the ramifications of making lenders liable for their borrowers’ actions more generally.

Speaking of the broader ramifications, does Ford Motor Finance need to be liable every time someone who financed their car gets in an accident and kills someone?  If there’s a problem in a more leftist-friendly industry - say a solar plant accident or Whole Foods has salmonella in its chicken - should the lenders be liable for that, too?  

She either legitimately wants to upend centuries of well established commercial law and essentially cripple everyone’s access to credit (or at least do so in certain industries she personally doesn’t like), or she is just a hack trying to score points with loons with a fresh new take on punishing banks and fossil fuel companies.  Either way it’s going to be hard to dress that up in some package that doesn’t come across as ridiculous.

i tend to agree with you here.

but i think she views B2B loans as discrete from B2C loans. when WF loans money to a poorly vetted project that has something bad happen, she's of a mind that the bank should bear some of that responsibility (i think). i think that was the point of getting the bank on the record of saying they bear no responsibility because they are not the operator.

again, she did it clumsily, and i'm not sure i agree with her stance, but i think she has plans beyond simple gotcha questions, which is what trumplicans are painting this as: a poorly thought out failed gotcha question, when i think it was something different.

it's not much different than when she was asking about congressional insider trading rules, imo.

[TwiceHorn 31,534]

5 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i tend to agree with you here.

but i think she views B2B loans as discrete from B2C loans. when WF loans money to a poorly vetted project that has something bad happen, she's of a mind that the bank should bear some of that responsibility (i think). i think that was the point of getting the bank on the record of saying they bear no responsibility because they are not the operator.

again, she did it clumsily, and i'm not sure i agree with her stance, but i think she has plans beyond simple gotcha questions, which is what trumplicans are painting this as: a poorly thought out failed gotcha question, when i think it was something different.

it's not much different than when she was asking about congressional insider trading rules, imo.

She just thinks all business/capitalism is evil.  Some of it is, but fucking with the credit markets for social gains is not something we should ever be doing (unless the social gains derive directly from credit policies, e.g. predatory lending).

[High Plains Drifter 11,052]

 

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Serious question: How many freshman reps from either party get featured sessions at SXSW?

 

The same number that Republicans flip their shit over?

 

39 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

There are already penalties, incentives and regulations on the people that own/operate  these assets.

By imposing additional penalties, regulations, etc. on the lenders, wouldn’t they require higher rates on their financing to account for the higher risk? Those higher payments would then incurred by the owner and operator and are ultimately passed down to their customers. 

 

And there would then be less customers. Sounds like capitalism at work. I approve.

 

38 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

That part is never explained, wonder why ?

 

Please. That part is explained over and over. Its also pretty fucking obvious.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

Just now, High Plains Drifter said:

 

 

The same number that Republicans flip their shit over?

 

 

And there would then be less customers. Sounds like capitalism at work. I approve.

 

 

Please. That part is explained over and over. Its also pretty fucking obvious.

No it; ls not its always left out how the proposal might affect cost down the road.

[RomaVicta 30,012]

3 hours ago, 936horn said:

Man some of the mental gymnastics defending every single faux pas and idiotic thing AOC says rivals the shit we see from the MAGA folks that everyone likes to bitch about. Wild.

False flag troll. Look at the crazy libs! I'm not a Trumpist! (Slick)

3 hours ago, Bash Riprock said:

 

Edited hit job (Poor effort, but not atypical)

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Page 139 about a freshman rep.

Result

Great juxtaposition of posts that were damn near consecutive. 

All of my knowledge of AOC stems from the national GOP campaign to make her the new Sheila Jackson Lee whom they also claimed was the embodiment of the Democratic Party. The election of a bar tender with socialist tendencies (or whatever) to the House was newsworthy. Since then, it's all GOP shooting themselves in the dick trying to demonize her. 

I will cease contributing to this troll campaign. It's all the Trumpists have, so let them be content with their last few sips of the good old days when more people were convinced the GOP had some shred of interest in the American people. 

Adios, amigos.

[GSU&UT 1,798]

1 hour ago, longhornmatt said:

I know you said you don’t necessarily agree with her idea, but I don’t think there is any way to NOT be clumsy when your point is that lending money for a common pipeline - or really anything in the fossil fuel industry at all - is some kind of social evil that society should consider punishing.  That’s a fringe environmentalist wackjob position in and of itself, without even considering the ramifications of making lenders liable for their borrowers’ actions more generally.

Speaking of the broader ramifications, does Ford Motor Finance need to be liable every time someone who financed their car gets in an accident and kills someone?  If there’s a problem in a more leftist-friendly industry - say a solar plant accident or Whole Foods has salmonella in its chicken - should the lenders be liable for that, too?  

She either legitimately wants to upend centuries of well established commercial law and essentially cripple everyone’s access to credit (or at least do so in certain industries she personally doesn’t like), or she is just a hack trying to score points with loons with a fresh new take on punishing banks and fossil fuel companies.  Either way it’s going to be hard to dress that up in some package that doesn’t come across as ridiculous.

Now do oil companies who knowingly knew fossil fuels were significantly contributing to climate change back in the 80s.

[TwiceHorn 31,534]

1 minute ago, GSU&UT said:

Now do oil companies who knowingly knew fossil fuels were significantly contributing to climate change back in the 80s.

Um, what?  We're talking about lending here, and imposing liability on lenders for torts and crimes of borrowers.  That should be a non-starter.

[RomaVicta 30,012]

Alright, one more thing. I would appreciate it if her distinct proposals and observations that prompt interesting discussion be posted as separate threads. The banking discussion is interesting and it's a shame it's mixed in with all the other shit.

Thanking you for your forbearance,

RomaVicta

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Regardless if you agree with her policy ideas or tactics, I hope we can agree AOC appears to be in Congress for the right reasons, fighting for those that can’t fight for themselves.  

You’d have to be a real piece of shit to mock someone spending their time and energy for a noble cause. 

[High Plains Drifter 11,052]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

You’d have to be a real piece of shit to mock someone spending their time and energy for a noble cause. 

 

Hmmm.

[elfenix 34,332]

1 hour ago, Enchubben said:

There are already penalties, incentives and regulations on the people that own/operate  these assets.

By imposing additional penalties, regulations, etc. on the lenders, wouldn’t they require higher rates on their financing to account for the higher risk? Those higher payments would then incurred by the owner and operator and are ultimately passed down to their customers. 

since taxpayers often have to pick up the bill on superfund sites (when they get cleaned up, which isn't common anymore), and society generally has to bear the cost of diffuse pollution rather than the polluters, those penalties/incentives may not be strong enough. 

Edited March 13, 2019 by elfenix

[deadshank 24,653]

23 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Regardless if you agree with her policy ideas or tactics, I hope we can agree AOC appears to be in Congress for the right reasons, fighting for those that can’t fight for themselves.  

You’d have to be a real piece of shit to mock someone spending their time and energy for a noble cause. 

Well....if you agree with her cause I can see how you would think that way.  

How does the Kool-Aid taste, by the way?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

5 minutes ago, deadshank said:

Well....if you agree with her cause I can see how you would think that way.  

How does the Kool-Aid taste, by the way?

I wish conservatives had a version of her in Congress I disagreed with.  

Will Hurd probably comes the closest but he’s not really much of a trail blazer.