President Franklin Roosevelt eulogized a fallen American Soldier by saying, “He stands in the unbroken line of patriots who have dared to die [that] freedom might live, and grow, and increase its blessings. Freedom lives, and through it he lives--in a way that humbles the undertakings of most men."
That's excellent news. I was absolutely appalled to learn what these people charge. And to the people who can least afford it. It's nothing more than legalized stealing. Illinois' usury rate is 11%, I think. But the usury rate only applies to individuals lending money to individuals. Banks and other institutions are exempt. Some states, apparently yours, regulates payday loans and limits them to 25-50% annual interest rate. Still steep. Others don't regulate at all. In those states, the APR can be anywhere from 400% to 1200% APR. Holy ****. It's not unusual for people to get into a whirlpool of debt they can't get out of. Some estimate that the average customer renews his payday loan up to 12 times. Horrible. Payday Loan Fees - Cost For A Payday Loan | What It CostsHarry said: They are doing stupid things in this bill like regulating payday loan companies, which had nothing to do with the financial meltdown.
So, if Congress put any meaningful regulation on payday loan companies, I'm alllll for it. It's a license to steal preying on those who can afford it the least. Even mob "juice" isn't that bad.
Last edited by MaggieD; 07-16-10 at 07:58 AM. Reason: To fix format
Thank you, Quazi!
Overall, I would say that this bill is a loss. While it does some good in some areas, it does not achieve the initial purpose, which is to minimize or prevent another collapse. I hate to say it, but the banks won this round.
Wonder how that's going to happen?Shareholders, meanwhile, will gain more say on how corporate executives are paid.
Ya' think??This is far beyond the capacity, the expertise, the knowledge of a Congress" to detail every new regulation,
Thank you, Quazi!
I agree with The New York Times editorial, that for all the idealogical and partisan carping, the financial reform bill is urgently needed and is another important legislative accomplishment. There is very little “perfect” law, but, once again our president and Congress have done something for the American people which will have lasting positive effects for decades to come.
Excerpted from “Congress Passes Financial Reform,” Editorial, The New York Times, Published: July 15, 2010
Republican leaders disparaged the bill on ideological grounds. On Thursday, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, lashed out at what he called a “government-driven solution,” while the senior Republican on the banking committee, Richard Shelby of Alabama, bemoaned “vast new bureaucracies.”
Those are convenient and time-tested bugaboos to campaign by, but they ignore the urgent needs the bill addresses, and its achievements. Those include resolution procedures to help ensure that shareholders and creditors — not taxpayers — bear the losses when big financial institutions fail; new capital requirements for banks and other curbs to help quell speculative excess, including the regulation of derivatives and restrictions on proprietary trading.
To get all that, the bill had to withstand a lobbying juggernaut. Since January 2009, the financial sector has spent nearly $600 million to weaken reform, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The lobbyists notched some victories, to be sure, mainly in the defeat of reforms that would have broken up large banks and done more to constrain risk-taking throughout the financial system.
But they also lost, especially on consumer protection. The new consumer financial protection bureau established in the bill is a milestone, not only for its intent and power to rectify lending abuses, but because it will institutionalize the insight that the safety and soundness of banks cannot — and should not — be measured by profitability alone, but by the impact that bank practices ultimately may have on consumers.
“Real environmentalists live in cities, and they visit what's left of the wilderness as gently and respectfully as possible.” — Donna Moulton, letter to the editor, Tucson Weekly, published on August 23, 2001
So the government demanded that banks give loans to people who were of high risk, so banks created loans that didn't put all the liability on themselves and screw their own asses to accomodate the government request, then when the very thing the banks told the government would happen if you give loans to high risk epople happens we then get to go "BOOO! BAD BANKS! BAD! We need more government to regulate you and tell you what to do!"
So, what's next on the list of things that a political ideology can force to do something stupid, and then when the obvious and predictable inevitable fallout of said stupid act happens, that ideology can use it as justification of saying "See, we need MORE government!"
Yes, I'm so thrilled. Yay congress, great job.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
Fannie and Freddie aren't affected. Does that not scream corruption?
I'm wondering where the slush fund is in all this, as the stimulus package turned out to be.