Republicans moving to repeal financial rule opposed by banks

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Washington Post

Republicans moving to repeal financial rule opposed by banks

By Kevin Freking | AP July 25 at 2:54 PM

WASHINGTON — Continuing its focus on curbing government regulations, a Republican-led House is seeking to overturn a rule that would let consumers band together to sue their banks or credit card companies rather than use an arbitrator to resolve a dispute.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized the rule just two weeks ago. It bans most type of mandatory arbitration clauses, which are often found in the fine print of contracts governing the terms of millions of credit card and checking accounts.

Republican lawmakers, cheered on by the banking sector and other leading business trade groups, have wasted no time seeking to undo the rule before it goes into effect next year. They’ll succeed if they can get a simple majority of both chambers of Congress to approve the legislation and President Donald Trump to sign it. The numbers are likely on their side, just as they were earlier this year when Republicans led efforts to upend 14 Obama-era rules.
....

Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/republicans-moving-to-repeal-financial-rule-opposed-by-banks/2017/07/25/aeff65ea-716a-11e7-8c17-533c52b2f014_story.html

---

* * * * *

Look over there! It's a Boy Scout Jamboree!

* * * * *

Retweeted by Dave Weigel: https://twitter.com/daveweigel

BTW, over in the House, Republicans are about to vote to take away your right to sue your bank.

Link to tweet

[Freethinker65]

1. Well, they do represent the banks and not the people, so not surprising

[asiliveandbreathe]

2. "And then they came for me" eom

[Skittles]

3. to the people who voted for that piece of shit

HE IS NOT REPRESENTING YOU

[Blue_Tires]

4. I remember when Hillary was supposedly the one owned by Wall Street

[DallasNE]

5. Russian Probe Shows

That deregulation has already gone too far with this exposure showing the extent of money laundering operations and how easy it is to get away with it.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. They could still filibuster this in the Senate

needing 60 votes to proceed to debate. And as a note, the Senate is restricted to doing 3 "reconciliation" bills in a session (and they would be using up "1" with their Deathcare bill should it somehow survive a vote), so they can't just randomly try to select that path just to get around Democratic opposition over and over.

[Dustlawyer]

7. ...harmful rule would benefit trial lawyers by increasing frivolous (lawsuits)...

This BS gets old! Trial lawyers gets a percentage of the recovery if we win, nothing if we lose. Last time I checked we still had to convince a judge and jury our clients were harmed and deserved recompense. Try convincing 10 our of 12 Texans your client deserves money for pain and suffering! Hell, half of them feel sorry for the companies that cause the harm. I have tried cases where most of the jury pool felt sorry for the asbestos companies we were bankrupting rather than the widow in front of them who's husband died a painful death from mesothelioma.

The asbestos companies, banks, oil companies like BP and the Kochs pay campaign donations left and right to get regulations cut, special bankruptcy provisions for only their industry (asbestos), and get new laws protecting them and their profits!

Don't fall for the likes of grass roots (astroturf) groups like Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, sponsored by the Kochs. The check and balances of our system keep trial lawyers from taking frivolous cases. We cannot get BS cases paid so we lose time and money if we take them. Also, judges can just throw them out, it is called Summary Judgement. If a judge thinks a jury got it wrong or awarded too much he can change it.

Face it, they want protection from the really good cases. How else can you justify putting caps on damages (putting a top amount allowed to be awarded)? They did it because of frivolous cases, yea right!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

11. Americans, reputed to be the most litigious people in the world, are filing far fewer lawsuits

Americans, reputed to be the most litigious people in the world, are filing far fewer lawsuits

Link to tweet

[Dustlawyer]

13. True, because they either eliminate the cause of action altogether, or

they tort reform it to death.

Take medical malpractice in Texas, if you are unemployed, a child or a homemaker and have no lost income, then all you can recover is your medical bills, and pain, suffering and mental anguish which are capped at $250,000. By the time you deduct attorneys fees and case expenses there is not much left. It is very expensive to bring one of these cases as your experts cost a lot, a lot of depositions and you have to post a bond to cover the other side if you lose. Attorneys are very leery because they have to hit a home run to make it worthwhile. The attorney pays all of the expenses and only gets that money back if he or she wins.

Now that bad doctors and poorly run hospitals don't have to worry as much about lawsuits, fewer bad doctors are pushed out of the system and hospitals do not have as much incentive to operate safely. Funny, their insurance rates went down a little for a little while, but seemed to go back up to pre-tort reform levels.

[Crash2Parties]

8. And then there's HR10 which gets rid of nearly all consumer financial protections

and regulation going back to the Great Depression. It even restructures the Fed so that the board can consist of only one party, and the board members no longer even have to be American citizens. It went into the House, through committee and voted on in four hours during/just after the Comey hearing. It's now in Senate committee. Keep an eye on it, they're likely to push it through while we're distracted by something big.

[Sunlei]

9. Republicans want to make sure American consumers can be screwed by their banks and insurance!

[dixiegrrrrl]

10. They are pushing for arbitration instead of right to sue.

a horrible process that is stacked in favor of the companies/banks/etc.

[FakeNoose]

12. This should be something the SCOTUS rules on

The law is already in place, so they can't make another law against it.
Unless the SCOTUS strikes down the first law, am I right?