A dark army descends on Gotham. Hungry for power, possessed by delusion, its leaders will stop at nothing in their quest to destroy the work of honest men, intimidate those who fight for good, and force free citizens into cowed subservience. I am not talking about “The Dark Knight Rises,” the latest installment of the Batman franchise, the premier of which this Friday I (and the entire free world, it seems) am avidly waiting to see. No. The army of evil that troubles me far more is the one aimed squarely at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which celebrates its first birthday this week.
The bureau, created two years ago as the centerpiece of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, is a critically important force for good in our economy. As it develops and matures, the bureau will be crucial in stopping predatory mortgages, bank fee gouging, credit card interest ponzi schemes, payday loan sharks and all manner of financial tricks invented by the financial services industry to fatten big banks’ wallets and fleece ordinary Americans. That’s good for consumers, it’s good for legitimate businesses, and it’s good for the long-term health of the banks themselves.
But the army of darkness isn’t in this game for what’s right. It is interested only in maximizing short-term profit and campaign contributions, even if it means destroying Gotham, the American electoral system (here’s lookin’ at you, Citizens United) and the American middle class. This cast of villains wants only one thing: deregulation. In the case of the CFPB, this means gutting it entirely. That’s because only deregulated markets offer the kind of volatility on which much of Wall Street now depends. The economy improves, or the economy drops off a cliff. It doesn’t really matter to Wall Street because either way, some traders will call their bets and reap billions in profit. And the good citizens of Gotham get taken by the house.
Wall Street’s cast of villains can’t kill the CFPB by themselves, of course. That’s why they bankroll a staff of senators, congressmen and now a presidential candidate. These elected officials act as the army’s public face, and they have been quite industrious in their efforts to kill the bureau from the start. First, Republican members of the U.S. Senate threatened a filibuster to prevent President Obama from nominating a director to lead the bureau. Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard Law Professor birthmother of the CFPB, was driven out of town. Then, the Gang of 45 signed a letter to the president demanding changes that would gut the bureau’s power, and responded with howls of fake indignation when the president (rightly) ignored them. They even pulled an obscure parliamentary trick to get Congress to try and prevent Obama from appointing a director while Congress was in recess (a ploy that the president also ignored, thank goodness).
None of the bad guys’ tricks has worked so far. But that doesn’t mean they’ve given up. They are a dogged lot. Already they’ve introduced nine separate bills to undo the most important protections created by Dodd-Frank. (Would you expect any less of a crew which has unsuccessfully voted to repeal Obamacare 33 times?) And Mitt Romney, this year’s standard bearer of Wall Street’s army of NoMads (“No you can’t,” and “I’m mad as Hell” Tea Party loyalists), has promised to gut the CFPB entirely if he wins the Oval Office this November.
In the spirit of service to Gotham and good citizens everywhere, I offer this compilation of leaders of Wall Street’s army of darkness. Over the last two years they have proven themselves to be persistent enemies of good government and the rule of law (remember fellas, Dodd-Frank is the law).
As you prepare to spend a couple hours in air conditioned splendor watching the Dark Knight kick some evil butt, keep this list in mind and ask yourself, “Who will be our guardian angel to protect us from these all-too-real forces of destruction?”
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) — “The Joker”
Rep. Bachus, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, likes to think he’s funny. In a speech before the Community Bankers of America in May 2011, the Distinguished Gentleman (I use the term advisedly) from Alabama said that his opposition to the CFPB “Has nothing to do with Elizabeth Warren, it really has nothing to do with her.” And then, with a laugh, he added, “I will not take a lie detector test.”
The hilarity does not stop there. In 2010, Bachus told the Birmingham News, “In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks. (emphasis added)“ This brand of hubris and lunacy would have been funny if this point of view hadn’t already caused the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
This paragon of comedic irony has over the course of his congressional career (since 1992) been the recipient of some $5,876,134 in personal and PAC donations from the finance, insurance and real estate sectors.
Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) — “Two Face”
Sen. Shelby likes to talk about how much he supports the consumer bureau’s mission. “Everyone supports consumer protection,” Shelby has said in press releases and committee hearings.
But his other face tells a different story. Shelby continually stretches the truth regarding the bureau’s power. He has called it “the most powerful, yet unaccountable agency in the federal government.” Not true, but that’s of little consequence to the Senator. In reality, the CFPB has more checks on its power than any other financial regulator, including the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which gives other agencies the power to veto any of the CFPB’s rules.
Since 1989, Senator Two Face has been the grateful recipient of $6,316,830 in personal and PAC donations from the finance, insurance and real estate sectors.
Rep. (and Speaker of the House of Representatives) John Boehner (R-OH) — “The Black Mask”
In Batman comic books, the Black Mask led a shadowy organization called “The False Face Society.” Like him, Rep. Boehner loves to paint his enemies with false faces. To prevent President Obama from naming a director to lead the CFPB while Congress was in recess, Boehner helped concoct a bizarre parliamentary ruse called “pro forma” sessions, which kept Congress nominally open by having a lone representative gavel the body into session each day (some “sessions” lasted just 30 seconds).
When Obama ignored this silly attempt to stymie a president from using his Constitutionally-mandated power to appoint people to the executive branch, Boehner exploded. “This is an extraordinary and entirely unprecedented power grab by President Obama that defies centuries of practice,” Boehner said, conveniently ignoring his own extraordinary and unprecedented power grab.
The Speaker also likes to talk a lot about lowering government spending, while doing his best to raise it. He says the budget that he is currently ushering through Congress would reduce spending on the CFPB, which this year represents $356 million. But bringing the bureau under Congressional budget authority would actually increase the burden on taxpayers, since currently the bureau’s money comes from the Federal Reserve, which is paid by lenders.
Why would Boehner be so quick to shift costs from big banks onto taxpayers? I don’t know, but I do know this: Since 1989, the Speaker has raked in $6,755,192 in personal and PAC donations from the finance, insurance and real estate sectors.
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) — “Mr. Freeze”
Sen. McConnell has pledged to do everything he can to put the administration’s consumer protection agenda (well, actually any Obama agenda) on ice, and he’s not above using a little hyperbole to do it. McConnell apparently (and falsely) believes that the CFPB Director has enough power to “bring down the banking system in this country if he chose to, because he has unlimited power.”
Consider this: When President Obama’s drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, visited Kentucky in February, McConnell welcomed him with open arms. But when it came to protecting consumers, McConnell suddenly changed his tune. “Yes, here’s the problem: this new agency answers to no one, absolutely no one — another unelected czar. We’ve got a bunch of those in the White House. We don’t need any more of them,” McConnell said to Fox’s Chris Wallace.
Perhaps Sen. Freeze was for czars before he was against them (sound familiar?).
In any event, the Gentleman from Kentucky has taken in $6,887,747 since 1989 in personal and PAC donations from the finance, insurance and real estate sectors.
Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) — “Bane”
A villain of intense strength and intellect, Bane once succeeded in breaking Batman’s back. And Romney, the man who got rich at Bain Capital in part by sending American jobs overseas, would love to break Obama’s back over the CFPB if he wins the keys to the White House this November. Even though Romney isn’t exactly a darling of Congressional Republicans (but, hey, what choice do they have?), he recently applied his Etch-A-Sketch skills to pick up Rep. Bachus’s rhetoric, recently calling the CFPB “the most powerful and unaccountable bureaucracy in the history of our nation.”
If elected, this would-be leader of Wall Street’s army of darkness has a two-pronged approach to killing the CFPB. First, he promises to repeal the Dodd-Frank Act (after he repeals “Obamacare,” of course). If that doesn’t work, in May his top economic advisor, Glenn Hubbard, said that Romney would gut the bureau either by moving it out of the Fed or breaking it up and giving its powers to other agencies — which was precisely the type of ineffective-decentralized regulatory mess the CFPB was designed to reform.
Somehow, even in the midst of incessant attacks from this cast of masked villains, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has managed to do good. While dealing with a broad array of regulatory responsibilities, it created a simple, three-page contract for mortgages and credit cards, opened investigations into the secretive worlds of credit reporting and debt collection, solicited and published tens of thousands of complaints against financial institutions and chronicled their responses thereto, and has started effective programs to teach financial literacy to students and veterans.
Batman just wants to do his job of protecting Gotham from crime. And the CFPB wants to do its job of protecting consumers from financial predators. Perhaps as the Dark Knight Rises to defeat the princes of evil, American voters should finally stand up to this army of darkness.
Trump and Christian Captivity to Right-Wing Politics
Note to Readers: this is a reflection containing my opinions. Anyone is free to disagree with me. All I ask is that you hear me out and respectfully consider my perspective. I do not believe there is a uniform political position that all Christians or progressives should hold. Thank You.
The rise of Donald Trump as a serious political option should greatly concern us. One of the questions that now confronts U.S. Christians committed to justice is the following: What if Trump were to become president? Imagine. What if Trump were to become president? What would happen?
What if Trump were to feasibly deport nearly 3 million immigrants? What if he helped cover up corruption and brutality in police departments while closing down public schools? What if Trump supported overthrowing democratically-elected governments in Central America and considered deporting unaccompanied minors fleeing these countries? What if Trump, while claiming to fight for regular people, defended Payday loans which often charge well over 100% interest rates to those in struggling circumstances? What if Trump favored the most militaristic and interventionist foreign policies? What if Trump promised further militarizing the state of Israel while downplaying the suffering of Palestinians?
The list could go on and on. Wouldn’t all of these things be horrible? Well, I think many of us need a reality check. All of the things I've just mentioned, things that Trump might do, have already been done by Democrats within the past 7 years. And I'm not talking about fringe Democrats or exceptions to the party line but I'm talking about Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Debbie Schultz, and Hillary Clinton, the upper echelon and power-brokers of the Democratic Party.
Obama’s administration has deported over 2.5 million immigrants and is only increasing detention and deportation raids at the end of his tenure, including mass deportations of Muslim asylum seekers. Emanuel, as mayor of Chicago, has come under fire for covering up corruption in Chicago's police department and forcuts to public education. Clinton supported the 2009 military coup in Honduras, has called for deporting recently arrived unaccompanied minors, has earned the reputation of being one of the Democrats’ greatestwar hawks (a proud mentee of war criminal Henry Kissinger), and recently gave a speech in which she promised to further militarize Israel while implicitly calling Palestinians the oppressor. Schultz, the current chair of the Democratic National Committee, has been working to gut rules intended to reign in predatory payday lending.
My point is not to demonize Democrats or well-intentioned voters but to raise some serious questions. I’m afraid that many of us, myself included, have welded our faith and political witness too deeply into the ideology of an increasingly right-wing party. In the name of overcoming the problems of the Religious Right, progressive Christians have given Democrats an easy pass. So when Bush goes to war and pushes the Patriot Act, we condemn it but when Democrats extend the Patriot Act and position themselves for more needless, imperial wars, and regime-changes, we consider it the trade-off, the small price to pay in order to stop true evil which is always Republican. When Trump declares the things that he wants to do, we are appalled. But when Democrats have already done, are doing, and will do similar things, we look the other way.
What Trump has said and stands for is terrible. I don’t need to go into detail here since there are plenty of stories, articles, and blog posts that cover that. But I think it’s important to not condemn Trump and Trump’s followers in a one-dimensional fashion.
Last summer, I did my field education placement at a church in rural, western North Carolina. Every morning, I woke up to a Confederate flag raised across the street from the parsonage house where I was living. For a New Yorker who’d never lived in a truly rural area, it was a different experience to say the least. While getting oriented to this new town, I noticed a lot of places with the name—I’ll call it—“Flenca.” Flenca middle school, Flenca park, Flenca lake etc. etc. I asked my supervisor what this Flenca thing was all about. He explained to me that there used to be a factory named Flenca that used to employ a large percentage of the town. Many years before, the plant had left and many in the community hadn’t fully recovered economically ever since. I saw the effects of this legacy up close.
Part of my summer involved working with churches that distributed food and other forms of aid to trailer park communities. In these settings, I saw white poverty like I had never seen it before. These were people forgotten and left behind, both by Republicans and Democrats. And I finally understood why many of these same folks were socialized, by conservative leaders, to blame migrant workers and immigrants. Racism had deep roots but racism was also politically expedient. Because if they didn’t blame foreigners, they’d had to point the finger to the CEOs of Flencas, to the leadership of both political parties, and to an economic order that didn’t even work for all white people.
Jonna Ivin, wrote an essay that deeply moved me called, “I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump,” in which she talks about her own experiences in poverty and seeing how racism and class compound to divide people. She writes about the history of Virginia and how white indentured servanthood was replaced by black slave labor and how white elites strategically pitted poor whites against blacks.
To be sure, the racism of Trump and his followers can’t be excused. But neither can the indifference to poor people, to workers here and around the globe. In hasty efforts to denounce Trump, it’s important to be aware of the anger and frustration that he’s tapped into, anger that sometimes is actually based on real problems but nevertheless directed in disastrous directions.
As Chris Hedges reminds us, the classic temptation of fascism is to tap into the anger of disaffected people while scapegoating foreigners. Liberals are in the awkward position of having to admit that half of what Trump says about trade agreements is true even if he himself is a walking contradiction. As Christians who live in the most powerful nation in the world right now, for better or for worse, we have a responsibility to think not just about the vulnerable people here but the vulnerable people everywhere who are impacted by what is done or agreed upon here.
My heart is naturally divided across the Americas. Most of my family is in Colombia so when I think about “progress” or “lesser evils” I can’t help but think about what U.S. policies might mean for my cousins down south. The Colombian Free Trade Agreement, which was passed in the most duplicitous of ways under Democratic leadership, not only hurts workers in the U.S. but crushes Colombian workers and does little to help with the high count of labor activist assassinations. Then there’s Plan Colombia (the Mexican version is the Mérida Initiative), a highly militaristic approach to cracking down on drug cartels/gangs/guerrillas which has been debatably effective but has proven to precipitate high numbers of human rights abuses. Not only has Democratic leadership supported this approach, Clinton is eager to implement Plan Colombia in Central America. I’m no strict, doctrinaire pacifist, but I think other, more peaceful approaches are possible and necessary.
I start to wonder, does “intersectionality” ever apply beyond the U.S. borders? I think about Berta Cáceres in Honduras. Cáceres was an Indigenous and environmental activist who was assassinated in March. An outspoken critic of the post-coup Honduran government (which upheld an absolute ban on abortion), United States’ complicity, and transnational corporations, she died organizing the Lenca people in the protection of their ancestral lands and rivers. She is just one example. Neoliberal economic policies are a real thing, hurting the most vulnerable, predominately Afro- and Indigenous people in Latin America, and others around the world. Moreover, U.S. foreign policy continues to devastate our brown siblings in the Middle East. White supremacy is a global phenomenon. Does “intersectionality” apply to them? What does the lesser of evils look like to them?
So what? Some might reply: these are all fair points but it’s a mark of privilege to not choose the less evil Democrat compared to Trump! I’d reply: less evil for whom? On what issue? But local elections matter more than general elections! As someone who’s worked for a civil rights non-profit on Long Island and tuned in to affordable housing efforts in Durham, I’ll be the first to tell you that local politics matter. But many Democrats don’t necessarily transcend these problems on a local level (e.g. consider the problem of gentrification and affordable housing in many “blue” cities). Even more reasons to build long-term alternatives, as Michelle Alexander (author of The New Jim Crow) has been suggesting. Even more reasons to support grassroots, independent movements such as Black Lives Matter and Fight for 15. Indeed, there are limitations to electoral politics. But we need to stop Trump at all costs! Just support the Democrats this once or try to reform the party from within. Just this once? So the ultra-right, reactionary forces won’t keep on conjuring up monsters after Trump? And about reforming the Democratic Party from within, it’s important to keep in mind past efforts that tried to do this very thing.
So what do we do? There are no easy solutions. What I do know is that when the options continually presented to us are extremely problematic, it’s crucial to keep thinking about alternatives.
Two years before her death, Cáceres was asked about the repressive Honduran government and the dangerous social situation. She provided a profoundly insightful response in one line: “They want to prohibit us from dreaming.”
They want to prohibit us from dreaming.
Many will say today that our imagination must begin and end with Donald Trump. That stopping him and stopping Republicans is the sum of any electoral political witness for social justice. Some will say that to imagine more, to wish more of not just Republicans but of Democrats is to be idealistic, to be unrealistic.
Yet, if any people are technically utopian it’s disciples of Jesus Christ who pray that God’s kingdom come and God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Liberation theologian Franz Hinkelammert has talked about the great illusion of neoliberal economics which came to represent itself as mere realism and any challenge to it as idealism. Nonetheless, it is this hegemonic economic vision which has expanded the incredible gulf between the wealthiest people and the poor and which is currently threatening this very planet. From the waters in Flint to the waters in Honduras.
The rise of Donald Trump as a serious political option should greatly concern us. One of the questions that now confronts U.S. Christians committed to justice is the following: What if Trump were to become president? Imagine. What if Trump were to become president? What would happen?
What if Trump were to feasibly deport nearly 3 million immigrants? What if he helped cover up corruption and brutality in police departments while closing down public schools? What if Trump supported overthrowing democratically-elected governments in Central America and considered deporting unaccompanied minors fleeing these countries? What if Trump, while claiming to fight for regular people, defended Payday loans which often charge well over 100% interest rates to those in struggling circumstances? What if Trump favored the most militaristic and interventionist foreign policies? What if Trump promised further militarizing the state of Israel while downplaying the suffering of Palestinians?
The list could go on and on. Wouldn’t all of these things be horrible? Well, I think many of us need a reality check. All of the things I've just mentioned, things that Trump might do, have already been done by Democrats within the past 7 years. And I'm not talking about fringe Democrats or exceptions to the party line but I'm talking about Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Debbie Schultz, and Hillary Clinton, the upper echelon and power-brokers of the Democratic Party.
Obama’s administration has deported over 2.5 million immigrants and is only increasing detention and deportation raids at the end of his tenure, including mass deportations of Muslim asylum seekers. Emanuel, as mayor of Chicago, has come under fire for covering up corruption in Chicago's police department and forcuts to public education. Clinton supported the 2009 military coup in Honduras, has called for deporting recently arrived unaccompanied minors, has earned the reputation of being one of the Democrats’ greatestwar hawks (a proud mentee of war criminal Henry Kissinger), and recently gave a speech in which she promised to further militarize Israel while implicitly calling Palestinians the oppressor. Schultz, the current chair of the Democratic National Committee, has been working to gut rules intended to reign in predatory payday lending.
My point is not to demonize Democrats or well-intentioned voters but to raise some serious questions. I’m afraid that many of us, myself included, have welded our faith and political witness too deeply into the ideology of an increasingly right-wing party. In the name of overcoming the problems of the Religious Right, progressive Christians have given Democrats an easy pass. So when Bush goes to war and pushes the Patriot Act, we condemn it but when Democrats extend the Patriot Act and position themselves for more needless, imperial wars, and regime-changes, we consider it the trade-off, the small price to pay in order to stop true evil which is always Republican. When Trump declares the things that he wants to do, we are appalled. But when Democrats have already done, are doing, and will do similar things, we look the other way.
What Trump has said and stands for is terrible. I don’t need to go into detail here since there are plenty of stories, articles, and blog posts that cover that. But I think it’s important to not condemn Trump and Trump’s followers in a one-dimensional fashion.
Last summer, I did my field education placement at a church in rural, western North Carolina. Every morning, I woke up to a Confederate flag raised across the street from the parsonage house where I was living. For a New Yorker who’d never lived in a truly rural area, it was a different experience to say the least. While getting oriented to this new town, I noticed a lot of places with the name—I’ll call it—“Flenca.” Flenca middle school, Flenca park, Flenca lake etc. etc. I asked my supervisor what this Flenca thing was all about. He explained to me that there used to be a factory named Flenca that used to employ a large percentage of the town. Many years before, the plant had left and many in the community hadn’t fully recovered economically ever since. I saw the effects of this legacy up close.
Part of my summer involved working with churches that distributed food and other forms of aid to trailer park communities. In these settings, I saw white poverty like I had never seen it before. These were people forgotten and left behind, both by Republicans and Democrats. And I finally understood why many of these same folks were socialized, by conservative leaders, to blame migrant workers and immigrants. Racism had deep roots but racism was also politically expedient. Because if they didn’t blame foreigners, they’d had to point the finger to the CEOs of Flencas, to the leadership of both political parties, and to an economic order that didn’t even work for all white people.
Jonna Ivin, wrote an essay that deeply moved me called, “I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump,” in which she talks about her own experiences in poverty and seeing how racism and class compound to divide people. She writes about the history of Virginia and how white indentured servanthood was replaced by black slave labor and how white elites strategically pitted poor whites against blacks.
To be sure, the racism of Trump and his followers can’t be excused. But neither can the indifference to poor people, to workers here and around the globe. In hasty efforts to denounce Trump, it’s important to be aware of the anger and frustration that he’s tapped into, anger that sometimes is actually based on real problems but nevertheless directed in disastrous directions.
As Chris Hedges reminds us, the classic temptation of fascism is to tap into the anger of disaffected people while scapegoating foreigners. Liberals are in the awkward position of having to admit that half of what Trump says about trade agreements is true even if he himself is a walking contradiction. As Christians who live in the most powerful nation in the world right now, for better or for worse, we have a responsibility to think not just about the vulnerable people here but the vulnerable people everywhere who are impacted by what is done or agreed upon here.
My heart is naturally divided across the Americas. Most of my family is in Colombia so when I think about “progress” or “lesser evils” I can’t help but think about what U.S. policies might mean for my cousins down south. The Colombian Free Trade Agreement, which was passed in the most duplicitous of ways under Democratic leadership, not only hurts workers in the U.S. but crushes Colombian workers and does little to help with the high count of labor activist assassinations. Then there’s Plan Colombia (the Mexican version is the Mérida Initiative), a highly militaristic approach to cracking down on drug cartels/gangs/guerrillas which has been debatably effective but has proven to precipitate high numbers of human rights abuses. Not only has Democratic leadership supported this approach, Clinton is eager to implement Plan Colombia in Central America. I’m no strict, doctrinaire pacifist, but I think other, more peaceful approaches are possible and necessary.
I start to wonder, does “intersectionality” ever apply beyond the U.S. borders? I think about Berta Cáceres in Honduras. Cáceres was an Indigenous and environmental activist who was assassinated in March. An outspoken critic of the post-coup Honduran government (which upheld an absolute ban on abortion), United States’ complicity, and transnational corporations, she died organizing the Lenca people in the protection of their ancestral lands and rivers. She is just one example. Neoliberal economic policies are a real thing, hurting the most vulnerable, predominately Afro- and Indigenous people in Latin America, and others around the world. Moreover, U.S. foreign policy continues to devastate our brown siblings in the Middle East. White supremacy is a global phenomenon. Does “intersectionality” apply to them? What does the lesser of evils look like to them?
So what? Some might reply: these are all fair points but it’s a mark of privilege to not choose the less evil Democrat compared to Trump! I’d reply: less evil for whom? On what issue? But local elections matter more than general elections! As someone who’s worked for a civil rights non-profit on Long Island and tuned in to affordable housing efforts in Durham, I’ll be the first to tell you that local politics matter. But many Democrats don’t necessarily transcend these problems on a local level (e.g. consider the problem of gentrification and affordable housing in many “blue” cities). Even more reasons to build long-term alternatives, as Michelle Alexander (author of The New Jim Crow) has been suggesting. Even more reasons to support grassroots, independent movements such as Black Lives Matter and Fight for 15. Indeed, there are limitations to electoral politics. But we need to stop Trump at all costs! Just support the Democrats this once or try to reform the party from within. Just this once? So the ultra-right, reactionary forces won’t keep on conjuring up monsters after Trump? And about reforming the Democratic Party from within, it’s important to keep in mind past efforts that tried to do this very thing.
So what do we do? There are no easy solutions. What I do know is that when the options continually presented to us are extremely problematic, it’s crucial to keep thinking about alternatives.
Two years before her death, Cáceres was asked about the repressive Honduran government and the dangerous social situation. She provided a profoundly insightful response in one line: “They want to prohibit us from dreaming.”
They want to prohibit us from dreaming.
Many will say today that our imagination must begin and end with Donald Trump. That stopping him and stopping Republicans is the sum of any electoral political witness for social justice. Some will say that to imagine more, to wish more of not just Republicans but of Democrats is to be idealistic, to be unrealistic.
Yet, if any people are technically utopian it’s disciples of Jesus Christ who pray that God’s kingdom come and God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Liberation theologian Franz Hinkelammert has talked about the great illusion of neoliberal economics which came to represent itself as mere realism and any challenge to it as idealism. Nonetheless, it is this hegemonic economic vision which has expanded the incredible gulf between the wealthiest people and the poor and which is currently threatening this very planet. From the waters in Flint to the waters in Honduras.
Unsecured Debt Consolidation
If you are not willing to put your assets or retirement savings at risk but want to take out a loan to benefit from the perks of debt consolidation then you have two ways. Firstly, it is an unsecured debt consolidation; secondly, it is a credit card balance transfer.
If you made a decision towards an unsecured loan MoneyTopics recommends you to start from formulating certain criteria theconsolidation loan should satisfy. First, the interest rate that you expect to receive on your new loan should obviously be lower than what you pay on your current debt. Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense to consolidate loans to increase costs. Secondly, pay special attention to fees. It is hard work, we know, but try to find loans with no application fees and annual payments. Choose credit programs so that you minimize early termination fees, late payment fees and other penalties.
Along with all the benefits of consolidation loan, taking out an unsecured loan is quick as no collateral is required. You still can expect a fixed rate and repayment period that makes it for you quite easy to plan future purchases. As there is no property to secure creditors from default they charge higher interest in comparison to secured loans and prefer to loan people with good credit score. Moreover, the interest costs are not tax deductible.
Peer-to-peer loans.
This type of borrowing is on the rise right now because of it simplicity. It is worth considering as you get money from other people not from banks and it means that the interest rates are better than in case of traditional loans. Still an intermediator is a peer-to-peer credit company that watch the transaction. After you get a credit score (Check Here), you ask for funds on the loan platform where investors find your request. Generally the money is provided by several investors and to attract them you still need a reasonable credit score. The platforms, which are the largest in the USA, are Prosper and Lending Club.
Personal (Signature) loans.
Personal loans are widely used to consolidate debt. All the transactions can be done via the internet and a credit decision is made within a day and then you can be provided with a loan up to 100 000 dollars. The interest rate is generally fixed and repayment period varies from 3 to 5 years.
Advance Fee Loans.
Be careful with advance fee loans because if a company offers money asking to pay in advance it might be a scam. Moreover, no company can guarantee that you get a loan, but if it does, then it can hardly be a legitimate creditor.
Payday loans.
Never use it for consolidation for your own sake. It is a very risky form of borrowing money. Loans are given within several hours without any credit check and verification of employment history. The money is directly transferred to your bank account but they come at extremely high interest (300%-400%). Do not get attracted by the simplicity of the process. It comes at high price.
If you made a decision towards an unsecured loan MoneyTopics recommends you to start from formulating certain criteria theconsolidation loan should satisfy. First, the interest rate that you expect to receive on your new loan should obviously be lower than what you pay on your current debt. Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense to consolidate loans to increase costs. Secondly, pay special attention to fees. It is hard work, we know, but try to find loans with no application fees and annual payments. Choose credit programs so that you minimize early termination fees, late payment fees and other penalties.
Along with all the benefits of consolidation loan, taking out an unsecured loan is quick as no collateral is required. You still can expect a fixed rate and repayment period that makes it for you quite easy to plan future purchases. As there is no property to secure creditors from default they charge higher interest in comparison to secured loans and prefer to loan people with good credit score. Moreover, the interest costs are not tax deductible.
Peer-to-peer loans.
This type of borrowing is on the rise right now because of it simplicity. It is worth considering as you get money from other people not from banks and it means that the interest rates are better than in case of traditional loans. Still an intermediator is a peer-to-peer credit company that watch the transaction. After you get a credit score (Check Here), you ask for funds on the loan platform where investors find your request. Generally the money is provided by several investors and to attract them you still need a reasonable credit score. The platforms, which are the largest in the USA, are Prosper and Lending Club.
Personal (Signature) loans.
Personal loans are widely used to consolidate debt. All the transactions can be done via the internet and a credit decision is made within a day and then you can be provided with a loan up to 100 000 dollars. The interest rate is generally fixed and repayment period varies from 3 to 5 years.
Advance Fee Loans.
Be careful with advance fee loans because if a company offers money asking to pay in advance it might be a scam. Moreover, no company can guarantee that you get a loan, but if it does, then it can hardly be a legitimate creditor.
Payday loans.
Never use it for consolidation for your own sake. It is a very risky form of borrowing money. Loans are given within several hours without any credit check and verification of employment history. The money is directly transferred to your bank account but they come at extremely high interest (300%-400%). Do not get attracted by the simplicity of the process. It comes at high price.
Bank Overdrafts Cost More Than Payday Loans: UK Consumer Group Report
High overdraft charges meant ''borrowing'' £100 from some high street banks could cost four times as much as lending from a payday loan company, a Which? report revealed.
The consumer group considered fees charged by high street lenders when customers slipped into unarranged overdrafts and found those needing as little as £100 were being charged up to 12 times more by major high street banks than the amount the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) allowed payday lenders to charge for borrowing over the same period.
Which? compared the cost of borrowing £100 for 28 days and found that a number of banks charged as much as £90, which was four times the maximum charge of £22.40 on a payday loan.
RBS customers faced costs of £90, while customers at Lloyds, HSBC and TSB face paid £80 for the same service.
The finding comes after competition watchdogs recently proposed that banks limit unauthorised overdraft charges. Cost caps were already in place on payday loans over fears of indebtedness of high numbers of payday loan customers.
Alex Neill, director of policy and campaigns at Which?, said: "People with a shortfall in their finances can face much higher charges from some of the big high street banks than they would from payday loan companies,'' The Telegraph reported.
According to the consumer group, unarranged overdraft borrowing charges from some high street banks were 12 and-a-half times higher than the FCA cap if consumers borrow £100 for one day. The FCA cap for one day was 80p, as against the £10 for the Lloyds Classic Account or TSB Classic Account.
Unarranged overdrafts had already come under the spotlight recently with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) proposing that banks set their own monthly unauthorised overdraft charge cap, which they would need to show clearly.
The consumer group considered fees charged by high street lenders when customers slipped into unarranged overdrafts and found those needing as little as £100 were being charged up to 12 times more by major high street banks than the amount the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) allowed payday lenders to charge for borrowing over the same period.
Which? compared the cost of borrowing £100 for 28 days and found that a number of banks charged as much as £90, which was four times the maximum charge of £22.40 on a payday loan.
RBS customers faced costs of £90, while customers at Lloyds, HSBC and TSB face paid £80 for the same service.
The finding comes after competition watchdogs recently proposed that banks limit unauthorised overdraft charges. Cost caps were already in place on payday loans over fears of indebtedness of high numbers of payday loan customers.
Alex Neill, director of policy and campaigns at Which?, said: "People with a shortfall in their finances can face much higher charges from some of the big high street banks than they would from payday loan companies,'' The Telegraph reported.
According to the consumer group, unarranged overdraft borrowing charges from some high street banks were 12 and-a-half times higher than the FCA cap if consumers borrow £100 for one day. The FCA cap for one day was 80p, as against the £10 for the Lloyds Classic Account or TSB Classic Account.
Unarranged overdrafts had already come under the spotlight recently with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) proposing that banks set their own monthly unauthorised overdraft charge cap, which they would need to show clearly.
Many Hurt, But Don’t Worry About The Banks
During the home buying boom, banks made as many home loans as possible to take advantage of great volume of buyers. The loans were sold to mortgage trusts, who repackaged them as securities, and sold them off to private investors. This gave the banks greater flexibility on who they could give loans to, because they could take the loans off of their balance sheets, and didn’t have to worry so much about the borrower being able to pay them back. So they could make more loans.
Short Cuts Were Taken
Although the mortgage trusts were legally obliged to obtain and hold the mortgage notes, a lot of them didn’t bother with that. Of course, when the foreclosures come to court, these notes were supposed to come with the case, but instead the courts have been relying on affidavits claiming that all the paper work is in order. And, it has come to light, that many of these affidavits were signed by low level employees who have no idea what condition the papers are in.
Now there are a number of claims that many of the people who have been foreclosed on are victims of fraud. They have been charged fees they didn’t owe, sued for default when they weren’t behind.
The Government Comes On Soft
Instead of demanding that this mess is straightened out before any more people are wrongfully foreclosed on, the Obama administration is asking these financial institutions, which were recipients of bail out money over the last couple of years, kindly be more careful, and be better behaved as they continue in their foreclosures.
Conservatives in Congress are even less demanding of the banks, implying that proper records of borrower obligations are not anything to be concerned about. People should just assume that if the bank says it owns your house, then they do. Even those, I suppose, who have had the houses that they bought with cash foreclosed on, or those who have been foreclosed on by two different banks at the same time
Credit unions are increasingly an alternative for banks and payday loans
After more than a hundred years of being outside the mainstream financial services sector, last April it looked as though credit unions might start edging their way in.
£38m million of government funding was allocated to the Credit Union Expansion Project, with a view to growing credit union membership in the UK from just over 900,000 in 2012 to two million by 2017.
As an alternative to banks and pay day lenders, credit unions, owned by local savers and borrowers have fans who want to see a more sustainable financial system. So, is membership increasing and how is the expansion project taking shape?
The latest figures posted on the Bank of England’s website show a membership increase of almost 17% in the year ending September 2013. The previous two years saw year-on-year increases of 8% and 9%, respectively.
However, actual membership is still hovering just above the one million mark. There is a long way to go and hurdles to tackle to grow this number. Credit unions have an image problem that needs to be addressed in order to bring more sustainable finance on to their balance sheets, according to Matt Bland, policy manager at the Association of British Credit Unions (ABCUL).
He says the perception of credit unions for many people is still of a service that is for “the poor”.
ABCUL is charged with running the expansion project for the government. “The big challenge that we’re grappling with here is that there’s been too much focus on supporting people who find it difficult to access mainstream services, so credit unions can find themselves disproportionately exposed to bad debt.
“They want to continue to do that costly but socially worthwhile work, but it needs to be balanced with a core membership that is in a more financially stable position,” says Bland.
There are around 500 credit unions in the UK, differing vastly in size, from those with just a few hundred members and run by volunteers, to those with more than 10,000 members, offering a wider range of services such as insurance and mortgages. Many receive grant funding from local authorities or charities, but it’s not enough to sustain them.
Helping a larger number of credit unions grow and offer more service is something on which ABCUL is working with members. Attracting more customers is difficult with few high street service points and limited services.
“The expansion project is looking at how we can collaborate and access economies of scale to provide services in a way that credit unions couldn’t individually,” says Bland.
ABCUL is now exploring, for example, whether groups of credit unions could get together to create secondary cooperatives offering specialist products such as mortgages for members.
Martin Groombridge, chief executive of London Capital Credit Union and one of the delegates of a recent US credit union field trip run by ABCUL, was inspired by the range of innovative products he saw.
In the US, credit unions serve more than 46% of the economically active population. They have a more diverse membership and range of products.
London Capital now hopes to branch out itself by offering less costly consumer finance as an alternative to high interest store cards and credit cards.
“This will help a lot of small retailers who would otherwise be put out of business by competition from larger chains, and keep money in the local community as well as reducing the cost of credit,” he explains.
The big win for ABCUL would be getting more employers to offer employees the option to automatically put a portion of their salary into a credit union savings account each month. This would get the numbers up quickly and bring in sustainable income, says Bland.
But despite a number of big employers including Stagecoach, British Airways, parts of NHS, various councils, Parliament, many police forces, and others running such a scheme, employers often believe it will be more difficult to organise than it is, according to Bland.
Credit unions are also working independently of the expansion project to develop their offering.
Tees Credit Union in Stockton has secured £150,000 from a charity, the Northern Rock Foundation, to fund its expansion. It plans to offer better online access, provide more service points within the community and increase public recognition by moving to high street premises. Its target is to quadruple membership, which is currently just over 2,000, by 2018.
“This is a bank for the whole community, not just a poor person’s bank,” says manager, Diane Patterson.
Groombridge agrees: “Many ordinary working people are paying too much for credit, and there’s never been a better time for the credit union movement in this country to take a significant market share from the banks.”
Reaching two million by 2017 looks like a big hill to climb, but ABCUL is optimistic that continued adjustments can at least keep generating a year-on-year rise in membership and make an increasing dent in the UK’s financial services sector.
Citizen’s Advice finds payday loans account for 62% of credit used by 17-24 year olds suffering severe debt problem Payday loans Young people with debt more likely to get payday loans online uk than go to bank Citizen’s Advice finds payday loans account for 62%
Short Cuts Were Taken
Although the mortgage trusts were legally obliged to obtain and hold the mortgage notes, a lot of them didn’t bother with that. Of course, when the foreclosures come to court, these notes were supposed to come with the case, but instead the courts have been relying on affidavits claiming that all the paper work is in order. And, it has come to light, that many of these affidavits were signed by low level employees who have no idea what condition the papers are in.
Now there are a number of claims that many of the people who have been foreclosed on are victims of fraud. They have been charged fees they didn’t owe, sued for default when they weren’t behind.
The Government Comes On Soft
Instead of demanding that this mess is straightened out before any more people are wrongfully foreclosed on, the Obama administration is asking these financial institutions, which were recipients of bail out money over the last couple of years, kindly be more careful, and be better behaved as they continue in their foreclosures.
Conservatives in Congress are even less demanding of the banks, implying that proper records of borrower obligations are not anything to be concerned about. People should just assume that if the bank says it owns your house, then they do. Even those, I suppose, who have had the houses that they bought with cash foreclosed on, or those who have been foreclosed on by two different banks at the same time
Credit unions are increasingly an alternative for banks and payday loans
After more than a hundred years of being outside the mainstream financial services sector, last April it looked as though credit unions might start edging their way in.
£38m million of government funding was allocated to the Credit Union Expansion Project, with a view to growing credit union membership in the UK from just over 900,000 in 2012 to two million by 2017.
As an alternative to banks and pay day lenders, credit unions, owned by local savers and borrowers have fans who want to see a more sustainable financial system. So, is membership increasing and how is the expansion project taking shape?
The latest figures posted on the Bank of England’s website show a membership increase of almost 17% in the year ending September 2013. The previous two years saw year-on-year increases of 8% and 9%, respectively.
However, actual membership is still hovering just above the one million mark. There is a long way to go and hurdles to tackle to grow this number. Credit unions have an image problem that needs to be addressed in order to bring more sustainable finance on to their balance sheets, according to Matt Bland, policy manager at the Association of British Credit Unions (ABCUL).
He says the perception of credit unions for many people is still of a service that is for “the poor”.
ABCUL is charged with running the expansion project for the government. “The big challenge that we’re grappling with here is that there’s been too much focus on supporting people who find it difficult to access mainstream services, so credit unions can find themselves disproportionately exposed to bad debt.
“They want to continue to do that costly but socially worthwhile work, but it needs to be balanced with a core membership that is in a more financially stable position,” says Bland.
There are around 500 credit unions in the UK, differing vastly in size, from those with just a few hundred members and run by volunteers, to those with more than 10,000 members, offering a wider range of services such as insurance and mortgages. Many receive grant funding from local authorities or charities, but it’s not enough to sustain them.
Helping a larger number of credit unions grow and offer more service is something on which ABCUL is working with members. Attracting more customers is difficult with few high street service points and limited services.
“The expansion project is looking at how we can collaborate and access economies of scale to provide services in a way that credit unions couldn’t individually,” says Bland.
ABCUL is now exploring, for example, whether groups of credit unions could get together to create secondary cooperatives offering specialist products such as mortgages for members.
Martin Groombridge, chief executive of London Capital Credit Union and one of the delegates of a recent US credit union field trip run by ABCUL, was inspired by the range of innovative products he saw.
In the US, credit unions serve more than 46% of the economically active population. They have a more diverse membership and range of products.
London Capital now hopes to branch out itself by offering less costly consumer finance as an alternative to high interest store cards and credit cards.
“This will help a lot of small retailers who would otherwise be put out of business by competition from larger chains, and keep money in the local community as well as reducing the cost of credit,” he explains.
The big win for ABCUL would be getting more employers to offer employees the option to automatically put a portion of their salary into a credit union savings account each month. This would get the numbers up quickly and bring in sustainable income, says Bland.
But despite a number of big employers including Stagecoach, British Airways, parts of NHS, various councils, Parliament, many police forces, and others running such a scheme, employers often believe it will be more difficult to organise than it is, according to Bland.
Credit unions are also working independently of the expansion project to develop their offering.
Tees Credit Union in Stockton has secured £150,000 from a charity, the Northern Rock Foundation, to fund its expansion. It plans to offer better online access, provide more service points within the community and increase public recognition by moving to high street premises. Its target is to quadruple membership, which is currently just over 2,000, by 2018.
“This is a bank for the whole community, not just a poor person’s bank,” says manager, Diane Patterson.
Groombridge agrees: “Many ordinary working people are paying too much for credit, and there’s never been a better time for the credit union movement in this country to take a significant market share from the banks.”
Reaching two million by 2017 looks like a big hill to climb, but ABCUL is optimistic that continued adjustments can at least keep generating a year-on-year rise in membership and make an increasing dent in the UK’s financial services sector.
Citizen’s Advice finds payday loans account for 62% of credit used by 17-24 year olds suffering severe debt problem Payday loans Young people with debt more likely to get payday loans online uk than go to bank Citizen’s Advice finds payday loans account for 62%
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)