People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

internet self-appointed experts.

---

Is this not what you are too, Bob?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

That is not ture. Rail networks and utilities started out as private enterprises that competed with each other. Only after time and politicians thinking they had the best interests of societies in mind did they develop into "natural monopolies.

---

Are you aware of the history of the competing rail operators in the UK between the wars?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

It is if a memember of a minority cries wolf and one finds oneself in court defending what you rather naively call "safe and sound lending policies."

---

What I naively call "safe and sound lending policies"? No, I quoted verbatim from the document. Clearly you didn't bother to read it. It appears on page 3/23 at the end of the first paragraph on that page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

It is cheap and easy to say "they did not have to do x, y or z but they are the ones who have to pay lawyers to fight discrimination charges, not internet self-appointed experts.

---

It's also frightfully expensive to pay banks billions of dollars because they didn't employ said "safe and sound lending policies".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

So your argument would seem to be that one's life has no value, with the possible exception of your own?

---

Who's life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Is this not what you are too, Bob?

---

I do not try to tell you how politics work in the U.K. but you are trying to tell us how U.S. politics work.

You figure it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

What I naively call "safe and sound lending policies"? No, I quoted verbatim from the document. Clearly you didn't bother to read it. It appears on page 3/23 at the end of the first paragraph on that page.



It's also frightfully expensive to pay banks billions of dollars because they didn't employ said "safe and sound lending policies".

---

If you dealt with U.S. politics first hand, as we do from local to federal, you would realize over here words are cheap, and often worthless.

It was the Feds. who cut off their noses to spite their faces. Many, but not all, private concerns came out of it very well.

Whether you like it or not, Democrats in Washington caused the collapse, and no one else.
People, over here, who have first hand knowledge of how Washington operates, have said so, and for you to say they are wrong because you want it to be so- que sera, sera.

http://activitypit.ning.com/video/vi...ideo%3A2252256

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Whether you like it or not, Democrats in Washington caused the collapse, and no one else.
People, over here, who have first hand knowledge of how Washington operates, have said so, and for you to say they are wrong because you want it to be so- que sera, sera.

---

I suppose that the banks were just victims then? Poor Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, AIG, and Lehmann Brothers, awwww. Bless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Whether you like it or not, Democrats in Washington caused the collapse, and no one else.

---

Again, if the G20 leaders are reading this, here you have your solution to the world's problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

I do not try to tell you how politics work in the U.K. but you are trying to tell us how U.S. politics work.

You figure it out.

---

Speaking of U.S. politics: I have understood that you're from Minnesota. That reminded me that the communist leader Gus Hall was also from Minnesota:

Gus Hall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is the US Communist Party still alive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Legislation is a piece of statutory law; made by a government or legislature. This is not one of those.

Considering that this is a policy document which deals with discrimination, then that's what the scope of the document is about. You would expect the DoJ to seek prosecutions on that basis.

It does not suggest though that a lending institution should adopt imprudent lending practices.
"Lenders must continue to ensure that their lending practices are consistent with safe and sound operating policies"
Not lending to people on the basis that they as an individual case can not pay it back is not being discriminatory. Not lending to people because they come from a low income area is.

---

You are still misunderstanding this document. The prosecution would be under Discrimination laws, 14th Amendment, Equal Rights Act, etc. This document is just clarifying what basis/criteria the DoJ will use to seek such prosecutions.

Let's take an example here. I own a bank. My bank sees a risk in lending on houses worth $60,000 or less. That is what my bank has decided is a safe and sound operating policy. Now 100 people come in seeking loans for $60,000 or less. My bank denies them all. But 70 of those people just happen to be minorities, 30 of them white. Well the DoJ has just defined my practice as having a "disparate impact". Therefore they can, and probably will according to this document, prosecute me for discrimination. Safe and sound operating policies be damned.