Current Events > Senate voted to remove the right to hold financial institutions accountable.

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/360895-senate-chooses-wall-street-over-consumers-seniors-and-service

The bill they passed, signed soon after by President Trump, wiped out a recently finalized Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule restoring Americans constitutional rights to access the courts when financial giants break the law. Forced arbitration lets big banks use the fine print of customer agreements to steer consumers into a rigged arbitration systemhidden from public view and often designed and controlled by the banks.

Wall Street worked overtime to kill the CFPBs rule because forced arbitration allows big banks to cover up scandals and avoid public accountability.

I really don't have words for this. It's blatantly corrupt and hurts the public.
---

It's almost as if a Republican government only looks out for rich white men!

inb4republicandefenseforce
---

littlebro07 posted...

inb4republicandefenseforce

either that or they will completely ignore this.
---

Why should the government take away our right to sign an arbitration agreement?
---

Bullet_Wing posted...

What exactly is the justification for this?

Business killing regulations have got to go.
---

While this is terrible if true as written, I had to cringe at this paragraph from the article:

To those fact-deprived senators, I ask one simple question: do you honestly think that service members who are defrauded while serving overseas, or seniors who are abused in nursing homes, or women who are sexually harassed at work should be forced to go it alone in a secretive arbitration process? Would you want that for your loved ones?

I fail to see how arbitration clauses for banks somehow prevents the above from going to courts. It reeks of partisan hackery writing and isn't really necessary if the issue is as serious as they claim.
---

s0nicfan posted...

While this is terrible if true as written, I had to cringe at this paragraph from the article:

To those fact-deprived senators, I ask one simple question: do you honestly think that service members who are defrauded while serving overseas, or seniors who are abused in nursing homes, or women who are sexually harassed at work should be forced to go it alone in a secretive arbitration process? Would you want that for your loved ones?

I fail to see how arbitration clauses for banks somehow prevents the above from going to courts. It reeks of partisan hackery writing and isn't really necessary if the issue is as serious as they claim.

Well

BY LINDA LIPSEN, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR 11/17/17 01:25 PM EST 24 THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

I left that part out in my quote, because it's not important and detracts from the issue.
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

Bullet_Wing posted...

What exactly is the justification for this?

Business killing regulations have got to go.

so they think fraud is good business, got it.

Nostradumbass posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Bullet_Wing posted...

What exactly is the justification for this?

Business killing regulations have got to go.

so they think fraud is good business, got it.

Of course it is, for the business. If they can get away scamming the consumers they will make more money that way.
---

Good.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Nostradumbass posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Bullet_Wing posted...

What exactly is the justification for this?

Business killing regulations have got to go.

so they think fraud is good business, got it.

Of course it is, for the business. If they can get away scamming the consumers they will make more money that way.

Especially if they have Congress in their pocket to turn a blind eye to the whole thing. There's no downside.
---

Bullet_Wing posted...

What exactly is the justification for this?

The less fatcats have to worry about what us filthy peasants have to think, the more money they can hoard.
---

The Senate vote came on the heels of a report from the U.S. Treasury finding that the CFPBs arbitration rule would bring little benefit to consumers at great cost. Earlier this fall, a review by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency also determined that the CFPBs arbitration would likely cause significant increase in credit costs to consumers.

For what it's worth from another source biased for the repeal. Links to those reports.

https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/sm0186.aspx

https://occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/other-publications-reports/occ-arbitration-study.pdf
---

SK8T3R215 posted...

For what it's worth

Absolutely nothing coming from the department lead by literal Steven Mnuchin and the office lead by this guy
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/business/dealbook/keith-noreikala-office-of-the-comptroller-of-the-currency.html
---