29 ms·

What's the best argument for this vote?

tantalor 9y ago
It's not very good: "the rule would harm our community banks and credit unions by opening the door to frivolous lawsuits by special interest trial lawyers." http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/25/559950275/senate-kills-rule-on-class-action-suits-against-financial-companies http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/25/559950275/...
- tertius 9y ago
  So I googled that phrase to see what the context was and what else she said in the briefing. It looks to come from a statement from the White House: > Statement Regarding Senate Passage of H.J. Res. 111 > President Donald J. Trump applauds the Congress for passing H.J. Res. 111, Disapproving of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) Arbitration Agreements Rule. According to a recent report by the Department of the Treasury, the evidence is clear that the CFPB's rule would neither protect consumers nor serve the public interest. Rather, under the rule, consumers would have fewer options for quickly and efficiently resolving financial disputes. Further, the rule would harm our community banks and credit unions by opening the door to frivolous lawsuits by special interest trial lawyers. By repealing this rule, Congress is standing up for everyday consumers and community banks and credit unions, instead of the trial lawyers, who would have benefited the most from the CFPB's uninformed and ineffective policy. And it seems that the DOT report is more important the the "Further" part. At least that is what "Further" implies in their statement. What did the DOT report say? I'm reading through it I suggest you (and others) do as well. https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/10-23-17%20Analysis%20of%20CFPB%20arbitration%20rule.pdf https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documen...
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  Ah, yeah, the old Republican trick of creating rules that clearly benefit giant corporations and pass it on the basis that it'd hurt "small corporations." I'm sorry, but if your tiny community bank fucked up badly enough to be on the receiving end of a class-action, maybe they deserve to be affected. Same for bigger banks.
  - ifhd 9y ago
    > creating rules that clearly benefit I think you mean removing rules that clearly constrain?
    - dguaraglia 9y ago
      Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. The end goal is the same: consumer rights get restricted in the name of "poor small businesses". That's been their rallying cry for everything, from tax cuts to trying to write homophobia/misogyny into law (the many "freedom of religion" laws that certain states pass at least once a year at great cost to the tax-payer, only to be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.)
- gowld 9y ago
  You can understand a statement better by replacing the words "special interest" with ", and I am lying now,"
pweissbrod 9y ago
concern of an onslaught of frivolous lawsuits as business models thus taxing bank legal resources Edit: don't understand the downvotes. I'm answering the poster's question but it doesn't reflect my personal opinion

It's not very good: "the rule would harm our community banks and credit unions by opening the door to frivolous lawsuits by special interest trial lawyers." http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/25/559950275/senate-kills-rule-on-class-action-suits-against-financial-companies http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/25/559950275/...

tertius 9y ago
So I googled that phrase to see what the context was and what else she said in the briefing. It looks to come from a statement from the White House: > Statement Regarding Senate Passage of H.J. Res. 111 > President Donald J. Trump applauds the Congress for passing H.J. Res. 111, Disapproving of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) Arbitration Agreements Rule. According to a recent report by the Department of the Treasury, the evidence is clear that the CFPB's rule would neither protect consumers nor serve the public interest. Rather, under the rule, consumers would have fewer options for quickly and efficiently resolving financial disputes. Further, the rule would harm our community banks and credit unions by opening the door to frivolous lawsuits by special interest trial lawyers. By repealing this rule, Congress is standing up for everyday consumers and community banks and credit unions, instead of the trial lawyers, who would have benefited the most from the CFPB's uninformed and ineffective policy. And it seems that the DOT report is more important the the "Further" part. At least that is what "Further" implies in their statement. What did the DOT report say? I'm reading through it I suggest you (and others) do as well. https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/10-23-17%20Analysis%20of%20CFPB%20arbitration%20rule.pdf https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documen...
dguaraglia 9y ago
Ah, yeah, the old Republican trick of creating rules that clearly benefit giant corporations and pass it on the basis that it'd hurt "small corporations." I'm sorry, but if your tiny community bank fucked up badly enough to be on the receiving end of a class-action, maybe they deserve to be affected. Same for bigger banks.
- ifhd 9y ago
  > creating rules that clearly benefit I think you mean removing rules that clearly constrain?
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. The end goal is the same: consumer rights get restricted in the name of "poor small businesses". That's been their rallying cry for everything, from tax cuts to trying to write homophobia/misogyny into law (the many "freedom of religion" laws that certain states pass at least once a year at great cost to the tax-payer, only to be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.)
gowld 9y ago
You can understand a statement better by replacing the words "special interest" with ", and I am lying now,"

pweissbrod 9y ago

concern of an onslaught of frivolous lawsuits as business models thus taxing bank legal resources Edit: don't understand the downvotes. I'm answering the poster's question but it doesn't reflect my personal opinion