Poor Martin O’Malley.
Between Hillary’s antics and “Feel The Bern” Sanders, he’s hardly getting any attention.
So, he issued a very serious ten-page economic policy paper on his proposals for financial regulation, criticizing the “too-close” connection between Washington DC and Wall Street.
The policy paper also cited the “fact” of Eric Holder supposedly landing a “$77 million job with J.P. Morgan Chase.”
However, this was from the satirical website The Daily Currant.
Btw, here are some current articles on their website:
Donald Trump’s Hairpiece ‘Made In Mexico’
Gluten Found in Portland’s Water Supply
Saudi Arabia Seriously Considering Allowing Women to Use Forks
Confederate Flag Kills 7 At Alabama Shopping Mall
Great job, O’Malley Campaign!
Via Washington Post:
In his white paper distributed Thursday on Wall Street reform, Democratic presidential hopeful Martin O’Malley underscored the seriousness of his purpose by including footnotes. Problem is, the very first one pointed readers to a satirical Web site.
O’Malley, the former Maryland governor, seeks to make the case that there’s a revolving door between Wall Street and those in U.S. government who regulate the financial industry, including prosecutors at the Justice Department.
The footnote backing up O’Malley’s claim about Justice directed readers to a fake news story about former attorney general Eric Holder taking a $77 million job with JP Morgan Chase. The source: The Daily Currant, which describes itself as “the global satirical newspaper of record.”
…a few details included the Daily Currant story should have raised red flags regarding its veracity. In describing Holder’s duties at the bank, for example, the story says: “Holder will also fetch morning coffee and breakfast orders for CEO Jamie Dimon and board members.”
O’Malley spokewoman Haley Morris acknowledged the error but brushed it off….
“Errant footnotes are just a small side effect of putting out the most comprehensive policy paper of any 2016’er on Wall Street,” she said….
Mr. Martin O’Malley (Mr. MOM), is currently touting ‘free’ college education. As part of his rationale, he uses his family as an example. He and his wife, took out $339,000 in loans for their 2 daughters who have recently finished college. Financial analysts criticize that decision as poor. However, I want to review the how.
What we normally consider student loans have annual and lifetime limits. Depending on your circumstances, your annual limit can be from $5k to $12k. And your undergraduate lifetime limit is from just over $31k to $57k. (Grad students get additional loans.) Mr. MOM’s children should both be in the $31k limit. Even if you assumed the $57k limit, that’s still $115k for both. Those limits/loans apply to the students (possibly also the parents as loan cosigners, not sure). From my understanding, he took out all the loans and not his children. That’s a different program called PLUS Loans. There is no annual or lifetime limit for those loans (their limit is how much the college costs minus scholarship and other loans). And the parents are solely responsible for repayment. Seems O’Malley is mixing loan programs like legal and illegal immigrants are mixed together by politicians.
I’m not sure when the Plus loan program started. Quick websearch only returns that it was changed in 2006 and 2008 (Bush). I don’t know the significance of those changes. I was not aware of this loan program until now and I think it is under the radar and needs to be looked into.