What is the rationale for so many Senate Dems rejecting Whitehouse's usury amendment?

[flpoljunkie]

I get why Republicans would be against this, but why so many Democrats? Is it not outrageous that credit card companies are allowed by law to charge such usurious rates on credit card debt? Am also surprised and disappointed John Kerry voted against this amendment.

Question: On the Amendment (Whitehouse Amdt. No. 3746 As Modified Further )
Vote Number: 159 Vote Date: May 19, 2010, 07:21 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3746 to S.Amdt. 3739 to S. 3217 (Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010)
Statement of Purpose: To restore to the States the right to protect consumers from usurious lenders.
Vote Counts: YEAs 35
NAYs 60
Not Voting 5

NAYs ---60
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brown (R-MA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dodd (D-CT)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)


http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00159

[izquierdista]

1. The "owners" don't want it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Cz4vcQKWfA

[flpoljunkie]

2. I think you and George Carlin may be on to something.

Thanks for the video link. I miss Carlin.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

13. Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct one.

Some votes and legislation or lack thereof just smoosh it right in your face. Like this one.

Like not negotiating drug prices for Medicare.

The beneficiaries are obvious. Hint: not us.

[Karenina]

39. WHY? $$$$$$$$$$$

:rofl:

[flpoljunkie]

40. What's really tragic is they sell their political souls so cheaply!

Got to have money to run those tv ads! They spend 2/3 of their campaign funds on these ads.

The Fair Election Now Act--which now has 153 cosponsors in the House and 20 in the Senate--includes discounted rates for tv ads. It's really sad for our democracy that most folks are so disengaged they must be reached through TV ads!

[Lyric]

3. Everyone who voted Nay should have attack ads made against them

that call them "Pro-Usury" and come complete with Bible verses.

[SkyDaddy7]

24. Is that the Bible or Quran?

I know the Quran covers this but I was not aware the Bible did. Either way I agree with your idea!

[Lyric]

32. The Bible does too.

http://www.bible-topics.com/Usury-or-Interest.html

It's just that most Muslims take their religious mandates FAR more seriously than most Christians do.

[SkyDaddy7]

33. Thanks! Yes I agree...

Most American Christians basically stand for everything Jesus was against! Stock piling wealth, war, torture, hatred toward certain groups of people & an utter disdain for the poor, disabled & elderly!

...It just goes to show how the wealthy in this country via Talk Radio & FOX "News" has convinced a large % of Americans to vote for policies that are against their economic well being and even against their own demi-god's teachings!

All the right wing has to do is bring up abortion, the gay agenda and/or Evolution in Public Schools and they will get a majority of the Christian Vote...This has allowed the Republican Party to win most of the elections since the 80's! Our country has been in a downward spiral ever since! Well, to be honest the middle class has been in a downward spiral ever since while the wealthy has become richer than ever before! The wealthy loves the fact America has so many blind followers of religion they can use as their vote drones!

[karynnj]

4. My reaction was like yours - I don't get it

I have not seen a statement form any of them.

Here is what the amendment really does (the one line summary can be deceptive as it it is purposely written to make it sound great in all bills):

SA 3746. Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. LEVIN, and Mr. BURRIS) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr. REID (for Mr. DODD (for himself and Mrs. LINCOLN)) to the bill S. 3217, to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end ``too big to fail'', to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 1320, strike line 23 and all that follows through the end of the undesignated matter on page 1321 between lines 17 and 18 and insert the following:

``(g) Transparency of OCC Preemption Determinations.--The Comptroller of the Currency shall publish and update not less frequently than quarterly, a list of preemption determinations by the Comptroller of the Currency then in effect that identifies the activities and practices covered by each determination and the requirements and constraints determined to be preempted.''.

(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter one of title LXII of the Revised Statutes of the United States is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 5136B the following new item:

``Sec..5136C..State law preemption standards for national banks and subsidiaries clarified.''.

(c) Usurious Lenders.--Chapter 2 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 141. LIMITS ON ANNUAL PERCENTAGES RATES.

``Effective 12 months after the date of enactment of this section, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the interest applicable to any consumer credit transaction (other than a transaction that is secured by real property), including any fees, points, or time-price differential associated with such a transaction, may not exceed the maximum permitted by any law of the State in which the consumer resides. Nothing in this section may be construed to preempt an otherwise applicable provision of State law governing the interest in connection with a consumer credit transaction that is secured by real property.''.

States now can control the caps of the companies operating in their state. One question is whether this might disadvantage the local banks and companies living within a state. For example, a bank operating in MA had to abide by MA rates for ALL its customers. This law would make national companies instantly more competitive - but, in reality if they wanted MA business they always could have given lower rates to compete with the rates in MA. What I don't know is whether MA banks issue any credit cards. (MA used as an example as it has lower state limits and because of the mention of Kerry.)

he only thing I can think of is that there might be complexities with a company located in say, Delaware, having to abide by different caps depending on where its cardholders live. States now can control the caps of the companies operating in their state. But, in a day when everything is computerized having a rate structure that depends on state as well as all the other variables it now depends on, should be easy.

Like you, I think this was a bad vote.

[olegramps]

9. What my question is why can't they pass a Federal Regulation on fair rates?

The Democratic Party doesn't represent working class people. They represent their corporate masters and their only concern is getting reelected so they can feed at the public trough long enough to earn multi-million dollar McJobs with major corps doing nothing after announcing that they are going to spend more time with their family.

[karynnj]

11. I agree that a national law

would be far better. Otherwise, if I am interpreting this correctly, the only people protected would be those from progressive states.

[ProSense]

37. "the only people protected would be those from progressive states"

That is exactly right: "To restore to the States the right to protect consumers from usurious lenders."

It's still amazing to me that people believe politicians will protect people simply because they need their votes. Look at Christie in New Jersey.

[Captain Hilts]

5. MBNA, Bank of America, etc. have paid them ALL off. nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. Finally, bi-partisanship!

0-2 with my WA contingent.

[IndianaGreen]

7. Yep, they are both whores of the banks and financiers

The two party system must die if we are to survive as a nation.

[flpoljunkie]

8. And, replaced with what? We must hold Dems feet to the fire, and try to get more people involved

in the political process.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Smash the duopoly to the ground!

Electoral reform is a must, including proportional representation, ending the duopoly redrawing of congressional districts in order to maintain the status quo in perpetuity, and increasing the size of the House for the first time since 1911. And that's for starters!

[flpoljunkie]

12. We have two 'Fair Districts' amendments on the ballot here in FL in November.

Was also pleased to see Bernie Sanders cosponsor the Fair Elections Now Act this week--even tho he has previously expressed some unnamed reservations to it.

[Sebastian Doyle]

47. Maria has been voting against some of the bankster bullshit lately, but not this?

Guess it only applies to the system that screwed WAMU, but NOT the part of the system that WAMU was equally guilty of (like screwing their customers with usury)

[flpoljunkie]

48. I would love to hear their rationale for voting against Whitehouse's amendment.

Banks get literally trillions of dollars from taxpayers and the Federal Reserve and working people get to keep paying usurious credit card interest rates.

You really have to wonder whose side many Democrats are on.

[DrToast]

14. Maybe because they don't want to block credit to many people

If they cap interest rates, it won't be worth it for credit card companies to offer credit cards to high risk individuals.

[flpoljunkie]

16. Credit card companies make egregious profits off the backs of those least able to afford their rates

I suppose the mafia can make the same argument regarding loan sharking. And, how do credit unions stay in business with a 15% limit?

[DrToast]

19. So if there are credit unions, what's the problem?

We're trying to paper over our failures in educating people about financial literacy by making things illegal. I'd rather the discussion focus on why the richest country on the planet has such a shitty education system.

The only way you can cap rates and still have credit be available to everyone is to pool risk. That's going to cause the rates for people with good credit to go up. It's a lot like the health care debate. With one exception--I don't consider credit cards a right.

[flpoljunkie]

25. Problem is banks make egregious profits on credit card rates from those who can least afford it

It's not just a matter of financial literacy. Why should our representatives fill their coffers with campaign contributions from banks and their hordes of lobbyists and then turn around and let banks rip people off with obscene credit card rates--even when they have done nothing to earn these outrageous rates.

We can also focus on more than one thing--egregious banks credit card profits and our 'shitty education system.'

[boppers]

21. 29.99%. That's my current rate on my *only* card.

At what level is it no longer "high risk", and simply "rape the consumer, regardless of risk"?

[flpoljunkie]

28. Great point.

[depakid]

22. If you level the playing field, there'll still be credit available

These lenders still want to make money- and as long as they can buy off the Senate, they'll continue abusive practices that hurt the overall economy and back them up with all sorts of scare tactics about "no credit" for people.

Rather like the payday and title lenders do.

They know a sweet situation- and sucker when they see one.

[Odin2005]

15. They are all owned by the Corporate Elite.

[flpoljunkie]

17. The answer is voter participation or public financing.

Either way, we've got our work cut out for us.


To urge your representatives to pass the Fair Elections Now Act.

Americans want a political system that empowers people and not big corporations. Sign our petition. Tell Congress to fight back.

https://secure3.convio.net/change/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=579

[flpoljunkie]

18. As candidate Barack Obama once said, 'We are the ones we've been waiting for.'

It's up to us to work for the change we need. Take the pledge.

The Fair Elections Now Act is the only bill that can begin to undo the damage of unrestricted special-interest donations' corrupting our political system.

Take a stand right now — commit that you won't donate to the campaign of any federal candidate who doesn't support cleaning up our elections and passing this vital bill.

By taking this pledge, you're making a statement that ordinary people can stand together against the corporations, unions, and wealthy special interests whose money dominates our politics.

http://www.fixcongressfirst.org/pages/pledge?source=kickeremail&utm_source=nonpledgers&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20100519

“I also believe that if we’re serious about change, we need to have a real discussion about public financing for congressional elections. Because even if we can stop lobbyists from buying us lunch or taking us out on junkets, they’ll still be able to attend our fundraisers – and that’s access the average American doesn’t have.”

— Barack Obama, August 2, 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=molWTfv8TYw

'Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for.' - Barack Obama, February 5, 2008

[ShortnFiery]

26. More like, "We are the ones whom the corporate elites love to rob of every last

vestige of American wealth and savings."

Then they'll scamper away behind their gated communities in Paraguay, et. out of our country. :puke:

[salguine]

43. You say "commit that you won't donate to the campaign...

...of any federal candidate who doesn't support cleaning up our elections and passing this vital bill."

The problem with that is, how do you know? They ALL support it until they say "So help me God", and then they 180 so fast you can't actually see it with the naked eye. You only have to look to the President to see a textbook case of this phenomenon. I'm sure this post will be deleted for that.

[flpoljunkie]

63. You can check to see who has cosponsored the Fair Elections Now Act--153 in House, 20 in Senate.

And, donate accordingly.

http://thomas.loc.gov

Type 'Fair Elections Now Act' in search box.

[glitch]

20. DemoCons against it for the same reason as RepliCons: Filthy Lucre.nt

[femmedem]

23. I'm puzzled that Dodd voted nay

considering he's not running again. And Lieberman did the right thing? I'm gob smacked.

[ShortnFiery]

27. You're puzzled Mr.. 4% CountryWide loan of 2002 voted "nay?"

You shouldn't be surprised when Congress NEVER FAILS to serve the upper 1%.

FOLLOW THE MONEY and you will always have the rationale for their actions.

[flpoljunkie]

29. The facts on Senator Dodd's Countrywide loan...

The senator said he decided to refinance his homes in Connecticut and in Washington in the spring of 2003, when U.S. mortgage rates dropped to nearly a 50-year low.

Documents released by Dodd showed he refinanced his Washington townhouse for $506,000 in a 30-year adjustable mortgage with the first five years at fixed interest rate of 4.25 percent. At the time, the home had an appraised value of $792,000.

The refinancing of Dodd's single-family home in Connecticut was for $275,042 in a 30-year adjustable note with the first 10 years at a fixed interest rate of 4.5 percent, according to the documents. The home had an appraised value of $500,000.

No points were charged on either refinanced loan, which the documents said was standard procedure for many homeowners in 2003.

Dodd also released a report from an independent firm, Cross Check Compliance, which analyzed market data on mortgage rates and fees from 2003 and concluded that the senator's loans were in line with the overall market at that time.

Dodd said that he and his wife would hire a third-party to negotiate the new loan terms on their behalf. (Reporting by Kevin Drawbaugh; editing by Jeffrey Benkoe and Tim Dobbyn)

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0246353920090202

[phleshdef]

42. Reddest of red herrings.

[Dr.Phool]

38. Dodd is the dumbest politician I've ever met.

I'll qualify that by saying I've never met Evan Bayh.

And the reason I didn't name a repuke, is because I meant "dumb". Not "evil".

[Sebastian Doyle]

46. I was surprised to not see Holy Joe on the list myself

Guess maybe he really DOES read the scriptures. :shrug:

[salguine]

30. You're still buying into the demonstrably false myth that the Democratic Party, as a whole,

is on your side. Follow the money.

[flpoljunkie]

31. No, not really, but the R's are always on the side of Big Banks, Big Oil, etc.

We have some really fine liberal senators, and we need to push the rest of them and the Democratic party to do what's in the country's best interests--despite the necessity of filling their campaign coffers due to our corrupt election finance system where lobbyists are kings.

[flpoljunkie]

34. A little history on South Dakota's and Delaware's involvement in the 'credit card bidness'

Credit card lenders adjust to recession, regulation

BY LISA KASSENAAR • BLOOMBERG NEWS • MAY 9, 2010

William Janklow's law office in Sioux Falls, S.D., is crowded with mementos from his 16 years as a Republican governor. On a low, wooden bookcase, near bottles of hot sauce custom-labeled for his annual Buffalo Roundup, he keeps a 4-foot length of red ribbon festooned with Citibank credit cards.

Janklow is the politician who in 1981 brought Citibank to South Dakota.

When he cut that ribbon to welcome the New York-based bank, he blew the lid off the U.S. credit card business.

The law inviting Citibank to South Dakota threw out limits on how much interest the state's banks could charge borrowers. In a secret meeting at the governor's residence with Walter Wriston, chief executive officer of Citicorp, Janklow agreed to drive through the legislation in a swap for 400 jobs.

"That was the deal," Janklow says. "You have no idea, in a state of 750,000, how many 400 jobs is, all in one place."

The business Janklow and Wriston set in motion with a handshake that evening transformed U.S. consumer lending. A year after South Dakota lifted its rate caps, usury rules were relaxed in Delaware, where the credit card businesses of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bank of America Corp. are based. Federal law allows banks to lend according to the rules of the states in which they are based.

Once interest rates were allowed to rise as high as banks could push them, credit cards became a ticket to enormous profits. In the decade ended on Dec. 31, 2007, credit card issuers together earned more than $50 billion. At JPMorgan Chase, cards accounted for 20 percent of both revenue and profits in 2007.

more here...

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100509/BUSINESS/5090343/Credit-card-lenders-adjust-to-recession-regulation

[xxqqqzme]

35. Both my senators voted 'Yea'

Boxer, of course - Feinstein - a surprise.

[flpoljunkie]

36. I was a bit surprised with Feinstein, as well. Kaufman, of course, is a senator from Delaware--one

of the two 'credit card bidness' states, along with South Dakota.

[flpoljunkie]

41. Speaking of Big Banks's influence, a must read from Michael Lewis, author of 'The Big Short'

(Emphasis mine.)

May 28, 2010
Shorting Reform
By MICHAEL LEWIS

To: Wall Street chief executives

From: Your man in Washington

Re: Embracing the status quo

Our earnings are robust, our compensation has returned to its naturally high levels and, as a result, we have very nearly regained our grip on the imaginations of the most ambitious students at the finest universities — and from that single fact many desirable outcomes follow.

Thus, we have almost fully recovered from what we have agreed to call The Great Misfortune. In the next few weeks, however, ill-informed senators will meet with ill-paid representatives to reconcile their ill-conceived financial reform bills. This process cannot and should not be stopped. The American people require at least the illusion of change. But it can be rendered harmless to our interests.

In private, reasonable discussions we were able to persuade our friends in the Senate to prevent votes on amendments hostile to our interests — the worst of which, I might add, was dreamed up by yet another female senator. But the minute a vote was held, and senators sensed the cameras watching, even our friends abandoned us to the mob. All of these people are continually engaged in the same mental calculation: are the votes I might gain with this remark or this idea or this position greater than the votes I can buy with the money given to me by Wall Street firms? With each uptick in the level of public scrutiny — with every minute of televised debate — our money means less.

In the short term, we must do whatever we can to dissuade Representative Barney Frank from allowing any part of these discussions between senators and representatives to be televised. In the longer term we must return to the shadows. Do your work in private; allow your money to speak for you; and remember, the only way we’ll get the financial reform we need is if we pay for it. No one else can afford it.

Michael Lewis, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair, is the author, most recently, of “The Big Short.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/opinion/30lewis.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

[MH1]

44. Because wouldn't it also give states the right NOT to protect consumers?

there's a reason some laws are federalized.

I'll admit I didn't read the bill so correct me if I'm wrong ...

[flpoljunkie]

45. This federal law enabled unscrupulous states to work with big banks to screw consumers in all states

That's a federal law that Whitehouse was trying to change. It would give states the right to block these credit card companies from doing business in their states-- when they charge usurious credit card interest rates.

It is a federal law benefiting banks, and a few states who run their credit card business--not consumers. It usurps states' consumers laws if a bank is willing to declare itself a 'national' bank. It is outrageous that 21 Democrats sided with big banks over consumers. If not us Dems, who? It surely won't be Republicans.

[Mass]

53. All state laws would have to be better than the

federal law anyway, like it is for minimal wages. But if MA for example has a decent usury rate, why should somebody from GA have to right to propose credit cards at twice the rate.

I think there is one reason I can think for not voting for it. When somebody in a lower usury rate state needs a credit card and cannot find it in state, they find high interest cards from out of state companies to establish credit.

This said, I am not sure it is a good reason. There are usury laws in states for a reason.

[laylah]

49. I remember usery laws...

a thing of the past, unfortunately. This is SUCH a clusterf*ck!

[flpoljunkie]

50. When bank lobbyists can legally bundle contributions for members of Congress, their money speaks

volumes--especially when so many Americans are uninformed. If we all voted, and spoke out, it would greatly lessen the influence of big money--but, unfortunately, we don't.

Although, I must say the 'internets' is making the grassroots of the Democratic party more powerful every year. That's a good thing.

[Canuckistanian]

51. Sanders should sponsor his own version - again

This has been his issue for years.

He should introduce another version to try and shame those same Dems by making vote TWICE against it.

[flpoljunkie]

52. He definitely will, if given the opportunity. We need more Bernie Sanders in the Senate.

He's a fierce advocate who recently signed on to cosponsor Dick Durbin's Fair Elections Now Act which would provide for public financing of federal campaigns beginning January, 2011.

Email your representatives and urge them to pass the Fair Elections Now Act: https://secure3.convio.net/change/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=579

[ProSense]

54. That is the bill that needs to pass

To establish a national consumer credit usury rate.

[flpoljunkie]

55. They both need to pass. We need to take back our democracy from the big monied interests.

[ProSense]

56. Both?

They conflict.

[flpoljunkie]

57. If we financed their campaigns, they would not be beholden to big banks. Congress could do both.

They would, no doubt, be separate legislation, but they do not conflict.

[ProSense]

58. No, they conflict, and

if Sanders' bill had passed, there would be no need for the subsequent bill.

Establishing a national usury rate does not preclude a state from establishing further protections.

[flpoljunkie]

59. Agree. Sanders' bill does not preclude state from further protections. Am talking public financing

of their campaigns--which would make them more responsive to us--and less dependent on big money contributions.

We are somehow not communicating here.

[stevenleser]

60. A majority of Democratic senators voted for it.

Just sayin

[flpoljunkie]

62. Not good enough. Way too many voted against it. Twenty Democrats!

As, for the Republicans, they talk big about states' rights-until it conflicts with their corporate paymasters' bottom line.

[harun]

61. Because they are corrupt.

[Freddie Stubbs]

64. The Law of Unintended Consequences

By capping interest rates, it could make it less profitable for banks to extend credit to some higher risk consumers. Banks may respond by only offing credit to those with higher credit scores, eliminating that option for lower credit individuals.