|
Phydeaux -> RE: Disparate impact - govt at its worst (2/7/2016 3:28:27 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Well we knew the Fed would go along as they are after all..bankers.
Secondly, I have to wonder why Ally didn't go to court to at least try for a summary judgment on the basis that the CRA does not list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation process should accommodate the situation and context of each individual institution and in addition to the so-called discrimination being only shown via statistical analysis.
But in the end, yes, corrupt as hell and sounds like the dems are finally learning the game. I have never argued that any politician does not have his price but that historically at least since Nixon, the repubs have been easier to buy or more readily pander.
You're late to the game - this is nothing new for the dems. This has been happening for more than a dozen years. As for why..
The costs of litigation in this country are too damn high - but more to the point, the bank was under fear that win or lose their lending license would be revoked.
Well the way I read it, Ally was going to be denied holding company status, that's all. Also, the way I read the CRA, that's the only 'enforcement' action that can be taken. As I've written, a close friend and owner of a mortgage co., has never ever made a single CRA loan. Now he also has never sought banking status etc. but on its own, violation of the CRA intent has been circumvented by many lenders/bankers. So yes, that corruption has been around for a long time and is a very, very bipartisan affair.
I also mean the dems are doing this on the cheap, repubs get paid (contributions) for often looking the other way, i.e. TARP for example. Example, we had 13 banks all presumably too big too fail and for years dealt shit paper. After TARP, we have 6 banks too 'bigger' to fail. Then they showered money on the repubs. Thank you, thank you very much.
All part of the negatives for Hillary as she too...will play ball. Why ? Because we know the repubs will, going in. Repubs in the bankers pocket, is never a question.
I agree with much of what you say; and I've posted my great opposition to Dodd Frank, Sarbane-Oxely, repeal of glass steagal, etc.
While it is true that historically Wallstreet benefitted republicans that switched around 2007.
Three of the top 5 and 7 of the top 10 recipients of banking largesse were Democrat, at the time of Obama election. Obama packed his advisors with goldman sachs adivsors, and banking ceos. Recall Jon Corzine, the free loans given to chris Dodd, Barney Frank etc.
This is the reason Sanders is going after Hillary - she is by far the largest recipient of Wall Street largess, raising between PAC/Non PAC over 34 million to date.
|
|
|
|
