"Keurig, they're a victim in this" - Sean Hannity

omg, this guy was REELING. Guess he was told by his bosses he can't be turning on advertisers

crappy payday loan legislation was recently introduced:

In late July, Warner introduced the ingeniously titled “Protecting Consumers’ Access to Credit Act of 2017.” The legislation would allow payday lenders to ignore state interest rate caps on consumer loans as long as they partnered with a national bank.

meaning allow predatory loans everywhere, even where they've been banned.

Dozens of states regulate payday lending through usury caps ― blocking loans with annual interest rates higher than a certain amount, often 36 percent. Payday loans usually take the form of a two-week advance of a few hundred dollars with a “fee” of a few dozen dollars. In 2013, the Pew Charitable Trusts found that a typical payday loan was about $375, with a $55 fee. Since the life of the loan is so short, in just two weeks this “fee” works out to an annual interest rate of over 380 percent. In practice, though, it’s usually much worse than that, since, according to Pew, a typical customer ends up repeatedly rolling over a payday loan, ultimately handing over about $520 in fees to pay off an initial $375 advance.


The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has since approved standards curbing some of the worst abuses in the market, but many states remain justifiably concerned about this type of activity. Interest rate caps are a powerful tool applying to essentially all credit, not just payday loans. But national banks have a great deal of flexibility with these standards thanks to a court decision from the 1970s. They have to comply with the interest rate caps only in their home state ― not those of the state where the person receiving a loan lives. So payday lenders and other predatory operations sometimes ask banks in loosely regulated states to issue loans on their behalf. The payday lender quickly buys the loan after it is issued by the bank, allowing the bank to earn a commission for its service as a regulatory frontman. In 2015, a federal court prohibited this end-run around state laws in a few states. Warner’s bill would essentially overturn the court decision and protect cross-state rent-a-bank schemes nationwide.

excessive usury is aimed at people who are desperate and/or uninformed of the consequences. this creates a cycle of more and more loans and drag the person further and further away from being able to become self-sufficient; they're unconscionable.

pacino wrote:FOX 10/Strategy Research poll Moore 49 Jones 43

Taking a closer look at what are undecided voters are thinking:
• 6% said the allegations made them MORE likely to vote for Roy Moore.
•44% said the allegations made them LESS likely to vote for Roy Moore.
•51% said they were undecided or that the allegations made no difference in their vote.

A poll conducted Nov. 9 - 11, after The Washington Post report, had Moore at 55 to 45. The new Fox 10 poll would indicate a slide. Truth is Alabama.

Do I correctly understand that upon review of the proposed "tax relief" that most middle class earner would see a little more the $50/month rebated, while million dollar earner will see $5K/month so the new answer is to find a way to excuse these lower wage earners from acquiring quality health care they can afford under the guise of give more money back by dropping the individual mandate? So your $50/month might exponentially increase but the cost of health care becomes unobtainable recreating the too sick/near dead ER issue that further spirals insurance and care costs resulting is some combination of massive insurance cost increases, and body counts.

Because this is so complex, interwoven, and the deadline for the vote is right after the stuffing is served, there is no way to measure what it really means to some percentage of Americans thus making it a blind vote effectively for all stakeholders involved.

Good plan.

Monkeyboy wrote:First they came for yousef and we did nothing.

Then they came for Docsmooth and we did nothing

The liberals are being lost, one by one. Do we even know if they're still alive?

pacino will ignore this. we will forget about it. he will ban someone else in a few months and vaguely defend it. we will forget and the cycle will continue until there is no one left to post here except KenRosenthal.

Stolen from 538's Harry Enten

Emmerson College:
Pre: Moore +22
Now: Moore +9
Jones Gain: 13

JMC Analytics
Pre: Moore +8
Now: Jones +4
Jones Gain: 12

Opinion Savvy
Pre: Moore +5
Now: Tied
Jones Gain: 5

Strategy Research
Pre: Moore +11
Now: Moore +6
Jones Gain: 5

Average
Pre: Moore +12
Now: Moore +3
Jones Gain: 9

don't worry calvin you can keep up with us on facebook

Sean Hannity‏Verified account
@seanhannity
Hold on to your coffee machines @keurig has recognized it got caught up & misled by a bigot. Still giving away coffee machines, which brand has yet to be determined. Stay tuned.

Did he just call himself a bigot?

https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/930156112439054336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.delish.com%2Ffood-news%2Fnews%2Fa56697%2Fsean-hannity-keurig-cease-fire%2F

It's not as hard to figure out as it might seem. Corporations (and by extension, their shareholders) along with the super rich (who are the big donors to politicians) will see an enormous tax break. In order for Republicans to pass such a plan without the Democrats, it has to be done in more or less a revenue-neutral way.

So the Republicans have to find a way to fund those huge tax breaks. In order to make it look like they're not taking money from the middle class to give to corporations and the super rich, they can't just increase income taxes on the middle class. They have to be more stealthy than that. So, first, they propose to eliminate or reduce certain tax breaks for the middle and upper-middle class: namely the mortgage interest and SALT deductions. The fact that doing so will reduce home prices in high-tax, high-housing cost states, which are predominantly blue states not only doesn't trouble Republican legislators, it's a bonus. Current estimates are that the average home price will decrease roughly 13%.

But the proposed changes would not be enough to offset lost revenues, so the Republicans had to find additional ways to fund the tax breaks. Where to do so? Why not look at other, predominantly Democrat and politically powerless groups. First, eliminate the deduction for medical expenses. That deduction is used primarily by middle and lower income taxpayers without adequate health insurance and those taxpayers are usually Democrats or they're Republicans who are too ignorant to know they're about to get screwed.

But even that wasn't enough so, using the same reasoning and delighting their donors (who absolutely detest the idea that their tax dollars are being used for healthcare of the poor, shiftless "others") the Senate Republicans are now proposing to repeal the Obamacare individual mandate, which has broad support among Republicans, rich or poor. After all, what could be good about a Federal Government mandate?

What the less fortunate Republican voters fail to understand is that Republican legislators care less about the mandate than they do about about the part of it they never discuss publicly: Without the mandate the government will no longer have to subsidize the health insurance of taxpayers who otherwise can't afford it. Thus, those taxpayers will no longer be able to afford health insurance (and, no, any modest income tax benefits they receive will not cover health insurance costs) and the young and healthy will, in many cases, decide not to purchase health insurance, driving up the cost of health insurance for the older, less healthy. Current estimates are that 13 million people will lose health insurance over the next 10 years and insurance premiums will increase by at least another 10% above previous expectations. As an added bonus, the Republicans will disingenuously claim that premiums are increasing because Obamacare is not working.

Put it all together and it's the perfect GOP plan: Huge tax breaks to their donors and the claim that they're helping middle-class taxpayers, too -- paid for by decreased home prices (and wealth) for the middle class, increased taxes for the upper middle class in blue states and the less fortunate and sick "others" who their donors detest. And, as an added bonus, they get rid of one of the 3 essential legs in the stool supporting Obamacare, thereby setting the stage for them to claim its failing.

To be fair, one could argue that lowering astronomical housing costs is a good thing. I mean, it's not good if you've just laid out a 3/4 of a million for a townhouse in somewhere near Cupertino, but if you're a millennial sick of living in mom's basement, there's an upside.

Of course, we do remember what happened last time housing prices collapsed, so it's probably a really destructive way to deal with housing costs.

thephan wrote:

pacino wrote:FOX 10/Strategy Research poll Moore 49 Jones 43

Taking a closer look at what are undecided voters are thinking:
• 6% said the allegations made them MORE likely to vote for Roy Moore.
•44% said the allegations made them LESS likely to vote for Roy Moore.
•51% said they were undecided or that the allegations made no difference in their vote.

A poll conducted Nov. 9 - 11, after The Washington Post report, had Moore at 55 to 45. The new Fox 10 poll would indicate a slide. Truth is Alabama.

That recent fox poll seems a bit hinky to me--first, it's a local fox affiliate that likely contracted with Strategy Research to conduct the poll. The n is 3000 likely voters, which means they had to contact at least 6000 people depending on how they screen for likely voters. And that's a huge, indeed unrealistic number to reach in such a short time unless you're willing to spend a big pile of cash, which it seems a local TV network is unlikely to do, especially when that high an n is completely unnecessary unless you're doing detailed sub group analysis. (The margin of error for 3000 is +/- 2%, for 1000 is something like 3%--it's usually not worth paying 3x the cost for a one point reduction in moe.) So it's likely they're using some other kind of methodology than RDD. The report from the news station that commissioned the poll has no details about its methodology.

TenuredVulture wrote:Of course, we do remember what happened last time housing prices collapsed, so it's probably a really destructive way to deal with housing costs.

Right. I think that's the point. If you want to enhance the ability of millennials to purchase a home (which would be a good thing on many levels) then the way to do that would be to target that group for help, not reducing everyone else's wealth by 13%. In fact, I can think of the perfect way to do it: Forgive some student loan debt and reform the system which now requires so many students to mortgage their future earnings just to get a college degree.

Aint no such thing as a $750K townhouse in Cupertino, so that is off the table as 1bd/1ba sets you back a cool million. There will be less problem with being a basement dweller when mom is upside down on her mortgage due to the forced decline in housing value so she will be over a barrel with what to do. For a change, renting would seem like a more realistic option.

By the way, I'm very afraid the Republicans are really downplaying or ignoring the effects of reducing the mortgage interest deduction. Given the importance to the economy of the housing industry generally, I genuinely believe they are inviting another recession.

TenuredVulture wrote:
That recent fox poll seems a bit hinky to me

Slugs summary gives focus. IT is far closer to a push at this point then anyone would have expected, but it sadly also seems like the edge in a closer race still goes to Moore.

JFLNYC wrote:By the way, I'm very afraid the Republicans are really downplaying or ignoring the effects of reducing the mortgage interest deduction. Given the importance to the economy of the housing industry generally, I genuinely believe they are inviting another recession.

Obama's fault. Doubly so if you are a true believer in trickle down. It proves the point if you shove an economy off a cliff, then it breaks, but misses the honesty test pf acknowledging who shoved and when while reaching into a bag of tricks to say that it just caught up from terrible policy of previous leadership. It could be true, past decisions do effect current situations, but honest assessment is required, and not calling factual analysis 'fake news' is critical.

Donald Trump wrote:Do you think the three UCLA Basketball Players will say thank you President Trump? They were headed for 10 years in jail!

I'm so glad our President is the most petty person in the nation.

slugsrbad wrote:

Donald Trump wrote:Do you think the three UCLA Basketball Players will say thank you President Trump? They were headed for 10 years in jail!

I'm so glad our President is the most petty person in the nation.

Its amazing

TenuredVulture wrote:

thephan wrote:

pacino wrote:FOX 10/Strategy Research poll Moore 49 Jones 43

Taking a closer look at what are undecided voters are thinking:
• 6% said the allegations made them MORE likely to vote for Roy Moore.
•44% said the allegations made them LESS likely to vote for Roy Moore.
•51% said they were undecided or that the allegations made no difference in their vote.

A poll conducted Nov. 9 - 11, after The Washington Post report, had Moore at 55 to 45. The new Fox 10 poll would indicate a slide. Truth is Alabama.

That recent fox poll seems a bit hinky to me--first, it's a local fox affiliate that likely contracted with Strategy Research to conduct the poll. The n is 3000 likely voters, which means they had to contact at least 6000 people depending on how they screen for likely voters. And that's a huge, indeed unrealistic number to reach in such a short time unless you're willing to spend a big pile of cash, which it seems a local TV network is unlikely to do, especially when that high an n is completely unnecessary unless you're doing detailed sub group analysis. (The margin of error for 3000 is +/- 2%, for 1000 is something like 3%--it's usually not worth paying 3x the cost for a one point reduction in moe.) So it's likely they're using some other kind of methodology than RDD. The report from the news station that commissioned the poll has no details about its methodology.

It's almost certainly an IVR/robopoll. Probably a quick 10ish question type thing - Are you a registered voter in the state of Alabama? press 1 if you are a registered voter in the state of Alabama, press 2 if you are not a registered voter in the state of Alabama.

Are you likely to vote in the upcoming special Senate election? Press 1 if you are likely to vote in the upcoming special Senate election, Press 2 if you are not likely to vote in the upcoming special Senate election

If the special election for US Senate were held today and the candidates were Doug Jones, the Democrat, and Roy Moore, the Republican, for whom would you vote? Press 1 for Doug Jones, the Democrat, Press 2 for Roy Moore, the Republican, Press 3 if you are undecided

Maybe a prez approval rating ?

Gender/Race/Party affiliation/Age/Education

Marginal cost of more interviews isn't too high. Though there's not any good reason to do 3000 interviews unless you're very interested at looking at demographic subgroups/regional breaks/etc. If they're not releasing that, might as well just do 800 or whatever, even if cost per interview is just a few bucks.

No worry about the Alabama vote. The Russians will take care of it.