Obama's Operation Choke Point finally unmasked

[nagokod]

Quote

Operation Choke Point was a plot by President Obama’s Department of Justice, the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and other government agencies to cut off banking and financial services for small businesses and industries that they deemed to be political enemies or otherwise undesirable.

source: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/obamas-operation-choke-point-finally-unmasked

[The Rev]

I think the fact that it's listed under the "Op-eds" section makes this HIGHLY skeptical...  Not to mention the fact that some of the links in the article don't work...  And that it's known to be a right-leaning newspaper, thus, JUST LIKE THE LEFT LEANING ONES, it presents you with its arguments and pretends the other side's POV doesn't exist, or minimizes it to the point of obscurity...  

 

Show me something from a more neutral source and I might take it seriously.  

[theyarecomingforyou]

The source is the CFSA, a group representing payday lenders in America. Their assertion is that the Obama administration opposed payday lending. Are we supposed to have sympathy towards payday lenders who prey on some of the most vulnerable people in society? What's concerning is that the Washington Examiner puts a political spin on it, claiming the policy was designed to target political enemies, when the original article on the CFSA makes no reference to politics. This is clear propaganda.

 

At the end of the day people should be glad that the Obama administration took action against the predatory payday lending sector.

[The Rev]

2 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

At the end of the day people should be glad that the Obama administration took action against the predatory payday lending sector.

That would mean the Right would have to admit that something Obama did was actually GOOD for the country...  We all know THAT'S not gonna happen.  🤣

[mudslag]

On 10/22/2018 at 1:41 PM, theyarecomingforyou said:

The source is the CFSA, a group representing payday lenders in America. Their assertion is that the Obama administration opposed payday lending. Are we supposed to have sympathy towards payday lenders who prey on some of the most vulnerable people in society? What's concerning is that the Washington Examiner puts a political spin on it, claiming the policy was designed to target political enemies, when the original article on the CFSA makes no reference to politics. This is clear propaganda.

 

At the end of the day people should be glad that the Obama administration took action against the predatory payday lending sector.

 

 

Given the OP and the section it's in, it seems pretty obvious. I think the OP is trying to take on Hum's position in this section. 

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

More conspiracy crud.  At least it's in the right section this time, so let's let the "conspiracy" side go.

 

Still just crud.

[ncoday]

On 10/22/2018 at 2:41 PM, theyarecomingforyou said:

The source is the CFSA, a group representing payday lenders in America. Their assertion is that the Obama administration opposed payday lending. Are we supposed to have sympathy towards payday lenders who prey on some of the most vulnerable people in society? What's concerning is that the Washington Examiner puts a political spin on it, claiming the policy was designed to target political enemies, when the original article on the CFSA makes no reference to politics. This is clear propaganda.

 

At the end of the day people should be glad that the Obama administration took action against the predatory payday lending sector.

How is it any different than a liquor store that keeps selling to an alcoholic?

 

As a society we have gotten away from requiring people to take responsibility for their own actions. Thus, we are seeing the result in terms of selfish, entitled-feeling children who don't understand why people are telling them they are idiots.

 

In terms of payday loans, they should indeed be required to tell you the interest rate, but if you read it and still sign, then you shouldn't be able to then come back and complain about being preyed on. You needed a service and someone offered the service. You were not being threatened, such as "protection" by the mob of old.

[theyarecomingforyou]

5 hours ago, ncoday said:

How is it any different than a liquor store that keeps selling to an alcoholic?

 

As a society we have gotten away from requiring people to take responsibility for their own actions. Thus, we are seeing the result in terms of selfish, entitled-feeling children who don't understand why people are telling them they are idiots.

 

In terms of payday loans, they should indeed be required to tell you the interest rate, but if you read it and still sign, then you shouldn't be able to then come back and complain about being preyed on. You needed a service and someone offered the service. You were not being threatened, such as "protection" by the mob of old.

What utter tosh! Personal Responsibility™ is just a way to excuse predatory business practices. Just because profit can be made through complex and predatory financial products does not mean that it should be made that way. The people targeted by such companies are generally less educated and more desperate, often unwilling—or unable—to read and/or comprehend the realities of such products. At least with the 'mob of old' people could appreciate it's not a sanctioned service and that there are risks attached; with payday lenders there is a credibility bestowed by their legality and the financial regulations that govern them (regardless that they are pathetically weak).

 

As for the alcohol analogy, if the US is anything like the UK then it's already illegal for clubs and bars to sell alcohol to people who are obviously drunk. Profit should not be put before the wellbeing of society. It's rather depressing that you think businesses should be allowed to prey on vulnerable customers and that it's all fair game.

 

Payday lending is not designed to help people out of a tight financial situation; it's designed to perpetuate debt such that it will ideally never be settled. You may consider that acceptable but you'll find that most don't. Most people will side with protecting those in financial difficulty rather than the trade organisation exploiting them. Businesses that don't serve to better society have no place existing.

[ncoday]

On 10/26/2018 at 4:29 PM, theyarecomingforyou said:

What utter tosh! Personal Responsibility™ is just a way to excuse predatory business practices. Just because profit can be made through complex and predatory financial products does not mean that it should be made that way. The people targeted by such companies are generally less educated and more desperate, often unwilling—or unable—to read and/or comprehend the realities of such products. At least with the 'mob of old' people could appreciate it's not a sanctioned service and that there are risks attached; with payday lenders there is a credibility bestowed by their legality and the financial regulations that govern them (regardless that they are pathetically weak).

 

As for the alcohol analogy, if the US is anything like the UK then it's already illegal for clubs and bars to sell alcohol to people who are obviously drunk. Profit should not be put before the wellbeing of society. It's rather depressing that you think businesses should be allowed to prey on vulnerable customers and that it's all fair game.

 

Payday lending is not designed to help people out of a tight financial situation; it's designed to perpetuate debt such that it will ideally never be settled. You may consider that acceptable but you'll find that most don't. Most people will side with protecting those in financial difficulty rather than the trade organisation exploiting them. Businesses that don't serve to better society have no place existing.

WOW! So you don't believe that believe should be held responsible for their own stupid decisions?

 

Not sure how to react to that. You're basically saying that payday loans are only taken out by stupid people and they should be protected from their stupidity. How do you expect them to improve and learn?

 

I am not talking about clubs and bars, I am talking about your typical liquor store selling to a someone they know is a recovering alcoholic. 

 

How do you define vulnerable?

Payday loans are short-term, unsecured loans. Those are always going to be expensive. However, what else is their option?

[theyarecomingforyou]

11 minutes ago, ncoday said:

WOW! So you don't believe that believe should be held responsible for their own stupid decisions?

One cannot assume that all consumers are educated and fully aware of the complexities of such products. Many lack a basic education due to failing schools; many have other priorities, such a children to feed. That's why regulation is required to set a basic level to prevent people being exploited. Your argument seems to be that in capitalism it's all fair game and businesses have no responsibility to act ethically, because people are all responsible for their own actions.

Quote

You're basically saying that payday loans are only taken out by stupid people and they should be protected from their stupidity.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Payday loans are targetted at less educated people, desperate for any lifeline available. They are predatory and should not be tolerated. Society needs another mechanism to support the vulnerable.

Quote

I am not talking about clubs and bars, I am talking about your typical liquor store selling to a someone they know is a recovering alcoholic. 

No business should sell alcohol to someone they know is a recovering alcoholic. I mean, do you honestly believe that's acceptable? If so that's extremely concerning and demonstrates an utter lack of empathy and compassion.

Quote

How do you define vulnerable?

How you or I define vulnerability is irrelevant. What's required is for lawmakers to determine how to protect people from predatory business practices.

Quote

Payday loans are short-term, unsecured loans. Those are always going to be expensive. However, what else is their option?

A functional welfare system would be a start.