7 ms·

This only highlights the moral emptiness and naked corruption of the modern GOP. Deregulation is fine if you strengthen the ability of citizens to obtain redre

This only highlights the moral emptiness and naked corruption of the modern GOP. Deregulation is fine if you strengthen the ability of citizens to obtain redress through the judicial system. If you weaken that ability, or it is weakened, you increase regulation. But they're both deregulating and restricting judicial redress, which only increases power of those who don't need it. Companies either are liable or not; these clauses preventing class action lawsuits seem baseless to me.

defined 9y ago
> these clauses preventing class action lawsuits seem baseless to me. I'd go even further and say corrupt and evil. Yet these baseless clauses have been around long before the modern GOP, so while I agree with your sentiment, I'd broaden it from "GOP" to "greedy corporates and their government puppets from any political party."
- noobermin 9y ago
  While you're right, Dems recieve a lot of Wall Street cash and do their bidding often, here all D's voted against it.[0] Both are "corrupted" to use your words but I'd say one is "worse" at least on this one issue. [0] And yes, most did it for political reasons I imagine.
  - akvadrako 9y ago
    This easily could have been an issue raised during a Democratic majority congress and passed with the same story. After all, everybody hates lawyers that get rich while class members get a coupon. It's not about the issue.
    - kbrwn 9y ago
      Democrats passed the law that created the agency Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
    - alejohausner 9y ago
      You may complain that class-action lawyers get much more money than the plaintiffs, but that's the nature of class actions. They are meant for situations where many indiviuals are harmed, but each harm is too small to justify the cost of a court case. So naturally the plaintiffs get small payouts: each of them suffered a small damage. And the lawyers get big payouts: they handled the paperwork of thousands of clients.
      - akvadrako 9y ago
        I wasn't actually saying class actions are bad, but that it makes a workable political excuse.
      - ambicapter 9y ago
        > They are meant for situations where many indiviuals are harmed, but each harm is too small to justify the cost of a court case. Don't they also get used for cases where (spitballing here) half a town gets cancer because the chemical plant in the area has been illegal dumping their effluents next door?
        howard941 9y ago
        Those cancer victims aren't getting coupons
  - kalleboo 9y ago
    To expound on your [0], remember that Republicans voted on repealing Obamacare when they knew it was going to be vetoed, but once they were actually in control, suddenly they didn't have enough votes.
    - ifhd 9y ago
      Except the democrats were the ones who put in these rules in the first place.
  - acdha 9y ago
    … and that’s true on almost every issue of importance (climate change, healthcare, etc.). The main exception is deference to national security agencies on things like encryption or detention.
  - defined 9y ago
    Nitpick: my word was "corrupt", not "corrupted".
- fmihaila 9y ago
  And yet, this particular law was opposed by all Democrats in the Senate and was supported by every Republican except two. It passed due to Mike Pence's tie-breaking vote.
wallace_f 9y ago
What's crazy is that since Reagan the GOP is also fine with increased gov spending, among a host of other increasingly authoritarian policies.* So no longer can they even claim to be anti government corruption & spending, and pro business & 'freedom.' They just appear to be 'anti people.' But please don't pretend the Dems are a whole lot better on most of these issues... I really hope our generation can work together and do something about this failing two-party system. *a short list: domestic surveillance, police militarization, civil forfeiture, anti net netruality, military expansion, pro Wall St, hand outs to healthcare lobbysits, etc..
- naasking 9y ago
  > They are just anti people. Correction: anti-poor people.
  - imglorp 9y ago
    > Correction: anti-poor people. Correction: anti-middle class people. They can't extract any money from the poor, and clearly not from the rich, so guess who's left?
    - poorrights 9y ago
      Actually, exploiting the poor is a rather lucrative business for the rich: check cashing, rent-to-own furniture, trailer parks, etc. https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/opinionator/2013/09/17/making-money-off-the-poor/ https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/opinionator/2013/09/17/maki...
      - yardie 9y ago
        You are both right. They exploit the poor by extracting from the middle. Meanwhile, the rich have moved their assets offshore or into anonymous properties.
      - lr 9y ago
        Don't forget about using collection agencies to collect local government fines. Like, how a $30 parking ticket eventually turns into $1000 and ruined credit.
xphilter 9y ago
Take a look at how many YC backed companies have arb clauses in consumer contracts. It's not just a GOP problem.
- e40 9y ago
  You missed the point. It's a GOP problem because of the legislation. Companies will do what they can to strengthen their bottom line, and no one is claiming they are morally bankrupt because of it.
- dwyerm 9y ago
  I've argued before, though, that I can't fault companies for using them. When someone hands you a get-out-of-jail-free card, you take that thing and hold on to it. It would be a special kind of lunatic who wouldn't. The logic is this: "Look, you just need to add this handful of lines to your agreement, and you've instantly got protection against money-grubbing, ambulance-chasing lawyers who would come after you because you misplaced a parenthesis. The cost is nearly zero, because nobody reads those contracts anyway, and anybody who makes a stink about it is probably one of those money-grubbing, sue-happy customers you don't want, anyway." So, yeah. I get it. I hate it, but I get it. To change it is going to require a consumer backlash large enough to impact congress -- not just the CFPB. But consumers aren't making enough noise, because of course, nobody reads those contracts anyway...
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Why can't I fault them for using a decidedly evil clause? These companies are run by people, who are fully capable of knowing right from wrong.
    - dwyerm 9y ago
      You're a customer, then, and as a customer I completely agree with you. But as an investor in the same company, I would fault them for not taking a simple step to protect their profits. Just because you include the clause doesn't mean that you're going to do evil and exercise it. Again, I can't fault you for taking the get-out-of-jail-free card that's offered. But I fault you mightily for doing something that would require flashing that card. The fact that the card exists at all seems like the root problem to be fixed.
katastic 9y ago
>This only highlights the moral emptiness and naked corruption of the modern GOP. So surely you're just as angry about the Democrats deregulating the telecoms in 1996 and allowing companies to own entire vertical chains. (Comcast owns everything from the News, to the pipe you get it from. Ever notice how they never mention "big corporations are killing America" anymore?) The GOP hates you. The Democrats _pretend_ not to. If that weren't the case, you'd think 8 years under Obama and near-universal public support behind him... things would have actually you know... gotten better. Too bad they were too busy letting Wall Street destroy the economy without jailtime, giving guns to Mexican cartels, spying on and threatening journalists, drone strikes on US citizens, unprecedented exponential growth in classified documents (cover my ass, anyone?), using the IRS as a political wing, and hunting down and smearing both Snowden and Julian Assange. (Props for the ACA, though. Except that also had no provision to stop healthcare insurance companies rapidly increasing, insane prices that make even ACA plans unaffordable to poor people--I would know. Minimum of $350 a month isn't a viable healthcare plan, as it continues to rise ~10% a year. But fixing pre-existing conditions was About Damn Time(TM), so again, props to them.) p.s. I voted for Obama, so yeah, I do get to bitch about the disparity between what he said, and what he did.
- HelloMcFly 9y ago
  The attempt to equivocate the two parties - particularly Obama and the modern GOP - is so unreasonable that it's barely worth rebutting. The fact that Democrats take actions that are inappropriate or sponsored by lobbyists doesn't automatically make them the same. Things did get better under Obama, in many ways. To pretend otherwise by focusing on areas that didn't get better is again unreasonable. Things are getting dramatically, markedly worse under a president who is essentially pushing standard-issue GOP agenda items. This article alone is evidence of that. Little effort need be expended for more examples. And, for what it's worth, I'm not a straight-ticket voter. *Edited for tone.
- zimpenfish 9y ago
  > letting Wall Street destroy the economy without jailtime The 2007-8 crash was somewhat before Obama's time. > giving guns to Mexican cartels Started under Bush. > spying on and threatening journalists Started decades before Obama. > unprecendented exponetial growth in classified documents That needs a citation. > using the IRS as a political wing Unless I'm reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy wrong, this was a natural (and requested) response to Citizens United and Republicans abusing 501(c)(4) entities. > hunting down and smearing [...] Julian Assange It is extremely difficult to smear a neo-nazi misogynist more than he already does by his own words.

defined 9y ago

> these clauses preventing class action lawsuits seem baseless to me. I'd go even further and say corrupt and evil. Yet these baseless clauses have been around long before the modern GOP, so while I agree with your sentiment, I'd broaden it from "GOP" to "greedy corporates and their government puppets from any political party."

noobermin 9y ago
While you're right, Dems recieve a lot of Wall Street cash and do their bidding often, here all D's voted against it.[0] Both are "corrupted" to use your words but I'd say one is "worse" at least on this one issue. [0] And yes, most did it for political reasons I imagine.
- akvadrako 9y ago
  This easily could have been an issue raised during a Democratic majority congress and passed with the same story. After all, everybody hates lawyers that get rich while class members get a coupon. It's not about the issue.
  - kbrwn 9y ago
    Democrats passed the law that created the agency Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  - alejohausner 9y ago
    You may complain that class-action lawyers get much more money than the plaintiffs, but that's the nature of class actions. They are meant for situations where many indiviuals are harmed, but each harm is too small to justify the cost of a court case. So naturally the plaintiffs get small payouts: each of them suffered a small damage. And the lawyers get big payouts: they handled the paperwork of thousands of clients.
    - akvadrako 9y ago
      I wasn't actually saying class actions are bad, but that it makes a workable political excuse.
    - ambicapter 9y ago
      > They are meant for situations where many indiviuals are harmed, but each harm is too small to justify the cost of a court case. Don't they also get used for cases where (spitballing here) half a town gets cancer because the chemical plant in the area has been illegal dumping their effluents next door?
      - howard941 9y ago
        Those cancer victims aren't getting coupons
- kalleboo 9y ago
  To expound on your [0], remember that Republicans voted on repealing Obamacare when they knew it was going to be vetoed, but once they were actually in control, suddenly they didn't have enough votes.
  - ifhd 9y ago
    Except the democrats were the ones who put in these rules in the first place.
- acdha 9y ago
  … and that’s true on almost every issue of importance (climate change, healthcare, etc.). The main exception is deference to national security agencies on things like encryption or detention.
- defined 9y ago
  Nitpick: my word was "corrupt", not "corrupted".
fmihaila 9y ago
And yet, this particular law was opposed by all Democrats in the Senate and was supported by every Republican except two. It passed due to Mike Pence's tie-breaking vote.

wallace_f 9y ago

What's crazy is that since Reagan the GOP is also fine with increased gov spending, among a host of other increasingly authoritarian policies.* So no longer can they even claim to be anti government corruption & spending, and pro business & 'freedom.' They just appear to be 'anti people.' But please don't pretend the Dems are a whole lot better on most of these issues... I really hope our generation can work together and do something about this failing two-party system. *a short list: domestic surveillance, police militarization, civil forfeiture, anti net netruality, military expansion, pro Wall St, hand outs to healthcare lobbysits, etc..

naasking 9y ago
> They are just anti people. Correction: anti-poor people.
- imglorp 9y ago
  > Correction: anti-poor people. Correction: anti-middle class people. They can't extract any money from the poor, and clearly not from the rich, so guess who's left?
  - poorrights 9y ago
    Actually, exploiting the poor is a rather lucrative business for the rich: check cashing, rent-to-own furniture, trailer parks, etc. https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/opinionator/2013/09/17/making-money-off-the-poor/ https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/opinionator/2013/09/17/maki...
    - yardie 9y ago
      You are both right. They exploit the poor by extracting from the middle. Meanwhile, the rich have moved their assets offshore or into anonymous properties.
    - lr 9y ago
      Don't forget about using collection agencies to collect local government fines. Like, how a $30 parking ticket eventually turns into $1000 and ruined credit.

xphilter 9y ago

Take a look at how many YC backed companies have arb clauses in consumer contracts. It's not just a GOP problem.

e40 9y ago
You missed the point. It's a GOP problem because of the legislation. Companies will do what they can to strengthen their bottom line, and no one is claiming they are morally bankrupt because of it.
dwyerm 9y ago
I've argued before, though, that I can't fault companies for using them. When someone hands you a get-out-of-jail-free card, you take that thing and hold on to it. It would be a special kind of lunatic who wouldn't. The logic is this: "Look, you just need to add this handful of lines to your agreement, and you've instantly got protection against money-grubbing, ambulance-chasing lawyers who would come after you because you misplaced a parenthesis. The cost is nearly zero, because nobody reads those contracts anyway, and anybody who makes a stink about it is probably one of those money-grubbing, sue-happy customers you don't want, anyway." So, yeah. I get it. I hate it, but I get it. To change it is going to require a consumer backlash large enough to impact congress -- not just the CFPB. But consumers aren't making enough noise, because of course, nobody reads those contracts anyway...
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Why can't I fault them for using a decidedly evil clause? These companies are run by people, who are fully capable of knowing right from wrong.
  - dwyerm 9y ago
    You're a customer, then, and as a customer I completely agree with you. But as an investor in the same company, I would fault them for not taking a simple step to protect their profits. Just because you include the clause doesn't mean that you're going to do evil and exercise it. Again, I can't fault you for taking the get-out-of-jail-free card that's offered. But I fault you mightily for doing something that would require flashing that card. The fact that the card exists at all seems like the root problem to be fixed.

katastic 9y ago

>This only highlights the moral emptiness and naked corruption of the modern GOP. So surely you're just as angry about the Democrats deregulating the telecoms in 1996 and allowing companies to own entire vertical chains. (Comcast owns everything from the News, to the pipe you get it from. Ever notice how they never mention "big corporations are killing America" anymore?) The GOP hates you. The Democrats _pretend_ not to. If that weren't the case, you'd think 8 years under Obama and near-universal public support behind him... things would have actually you know... gotten better. Too bad they were too busy letting Wall Street destroy the economy without jailtime, giving guns to Mexican cartels, spying on and threatening journalists, drone strikes on US citizens, unprecedented exponential growth in classified documents (cover my ass, anyone?), using the IRS as a political wing, and hunting down and smearing both Snowden and Julian Assange. (Props for the ACA, though. Except that also had no provision to stop healthcare insurance companies rapidly increasing, insane prices that make even ACA plans unaffordable to poor people--I would know. Minimum of $350 a month isn't a viable healthcare plan, as it continues to rise ~10% a year. But fixing pre-existing conditions was About Damn Time(TM), so again, props to them.) p.s. I voted for Obama, so yeah, I do get to bitch about the disparity between what he said, and what he did.

HelloMcFly 9y ago
The attempt to equivocate the two parties - particularly Obama and the modern GOP - is so unreasonable that it's barely worth rebutting. The fact that Democrats take actions that are inappropriate or sponsored by lobbyists doesn't automatically make them the same. Things did get better under Obama, in many ways. To pretend otherwise by focusing on areas that didn't get better is again unreasonable. Things are getting dramatically, markedly worse under a president who is essentially pushing standard-issue GOP agenda items. This article alone is evidence of that. Little effort need be expended for more examples. And, for what it's worth, I'm not a straight-ticket voter. *Edited for tone.
zimpenfish 9y ago
> letting Wall Street destroy the economy without jailtime The 2007-8 crash was somewhat before Obama's time. > giving guns to Mexican cartels Started under Bush. > spying on and threatening journalists Started decades before Obama. > unprecendented exponetial growth in classified documents That needs a citation. > using the IRS as a political wing Unless I'm reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy wrong, this was a natural (and requested) response to Citizens United and Republicans abusing 501(c)(4) entities. > hunting down and smearing [...] Julian Assange It is extremely difficult to smear a neo-nazi misogynist more than he already does by his own words.