House Votes To Strip Bank & Credit Card Customers Of Constitutional Right To A Day In Court
consumerist.com/2017/07/25/house-votes-to-str...
consumerist.comPosted Jul 26, 2017, 11:11 PM UTC
300245
consumerist.comThose rules seek to curb the use of “forced arbitration” in many consumers’ financial contracts. These arbitration clauses dictate that any legal dispute between the customer and the bank must be resolved outside of the legal system. Instead, these matters — no matter the scope of the allegation — must go through a closed-door arbitration process, where the results are often confidential, so there is no public record of the alleged wrongdoing. Additionally, most arbitration clauses include a ban on class actions — even through arbitration. So a bank could, for example, open millions of fake, unauthorized accounts in customers’ names, but then try to block all of those customers from moving forward as a plaintiff class. Rather, each of the millions of wronged customers is required to go through arbitration on their own. As a result, very, very few people ever enter into the arbitration process.
36
If we act like reasonable / interested people for a moment, discuss what the story is really about, and not just knee-jerk "anything that stops me from doing what I want is clearly wrong" (or to be downvoted), then I think we can discuss that this headline is inflammatory and inaccurate.
If in a contract you voluntarily sign away your right to sue a company in civil court (which, by the way, is not a constitutional right and not what is usually meant by "your day in court"), then you can't say that Congress has taken away your right.
You make a decision to engage in business with a company, and agree to terms that it offers you. You didn't have to sign that contract. CFPB wanted to restrict the ability of financial companies to force arbitration as the only means of redress in their contracts, and Congress just voted (very Republican-style) to cancel that proposed rule.
Now, a legit argument we could have (and should have) is whether a government should allow important, possibly in-the-public-interest matters to be resolved through a private loosely-regulated system. Or, whether when access to a financial system is so closely tied to credit cards that to have nothing but private resolution of disputes is not actually voluntary and consensual entering of contracts. Those would be questions worth addressing.
But to stretch and say that Congress just took away one of your Constitutional rights would be a leap indeed. At most, you could with a straight face say that Congress caved to big bank interests, and made consumer protections weaker. That's the truth.
32
I think all of the factual points you make are correct, but I disagree that it's a "stretch" to say that this would take away a constitutional right. While Congress has not said, "you do not have the right to sue," if they pass something that has the effect of completely locking the courthouse doors, they have taken a right away.
Also, we can't kid ourselves that, "Hey, this is a voluntary contract. If you don't like it, deal with another bank." It would be malpractice for lawyers at financial institutions to omit these arbitration clauses. There will be nowhere for consumers to go because all contracts will have these clauses.
So again, I agree with your points and understand where you're coming from. But when the average person says this would take away their constitutional rights, I think that's a reasonable assessment.
17
I think you misunderstand what is a constitutional right. Most people probably do.
Constitutional rights are those general principles that are above any law to change, such as freedom from arbitrary government action, civil liberties, voting, etc.
Nowhere does the Constitution does it say that you have the right to sue a private company in civil court over a credit card dispute (obviously). The Constitution doesn't even speak about civil lawsuits generally, except for the jury guarantee. That level of detail about how a person can sue another under our system of government (and how it changes over time) is where statutes and law fills in.
The right to sue someone originates in statutes, not the constitution. Because to sue someone, you have to sue them for breaching a certain law or regulation, with a legitimate cause of action, in an appropriate forum, and with appropriate standing -- all of which are determined by the law under which you are seeking to sue. It is totally up to the laws we make, to say whether you are even allowed to sue. And not even getting to the rules of civil procedure yet.
Otherwise, if suing were a Constitutional right, people would be suing each other for anything they felt like, and be able to say, "I have the right to do so!"
Back to the credit card company issue. If you voluntarily signed away your opportunity to sue in civil court because you entered into an agreement with them, then this is a contracts matter. You didn't have to do that.
It's your Constitutional right not to be forced to agree to or do things you don't agree with. It is not a Constitutional right to agree to things, and then sue outside the terms of the agreement because it suits you.
As I said, there are legit questions about whether having companies relegate disputes to private resolution is wise from a public policy point of view. And if not, then laws can be created about that.
But to say that a Constitutional right is being taken away is simply false.
4
I don't misunderstand constitutional rights in general--apparently I'm just entirely mistaken that there is a constitutional right to sue someone.
My assumption was that if there was a constitutional right to a jury trial in civil cases, that there was an implied right to access to the courts for civil wrongs.
Otherwise, if suing were a Constitutional right, people would be suing each other for anything they felt like, and be able to say, "I have the right to do so!"
On this point, people can sue people for anything they feel like. Whether a court will entertain their case or whether they will be successful is entirely different.
It's your Constitutional right not to be forced to agree to or do things you don't agree with. It is not a Constitutional right to agree to things, and then sue outside the terms of the agreement because it suits you.
I just want to be clear that I never said that people can violate contracts because it suits them.
Having said all that, I think we have a problem when companies that form a large portion of our economy can effectively bar people from taking them to court. We can say that people have a choice, because they do. However, in reality, most people do not have a meaningful choice and must interact with financial institutions.
3
You have the right to sue just about anyone for anything. Whether or not you have standing to have said lawsuit heard by the courts (or a jury of your peers) is a separate question from that right. Said differently, just because people have the right to remain silent or the right to an attorney doesn't mean they'll use them.
1
Just about everything has an arbitration clause except for anything AARP branded
3
That's true.
Like I said, if you're a lawyer drafting contracts for a company, it would be crazy for you to omit arbitration clauses. If I were a company dealing with alot of people I would probably put them in my contracts. However, my understanding of this situation (I didn't read this article--I went to the LA Times to read about it) is that the CFPB rule ensured that, at the very least, consumers still had some access to the courts through class action suits. The bills being considered now would scrap the CFPB regulation.
I understand that arbitration was found constitutional. But like I said, if Congress passes a law that will effectively bar people from court, I think it's reasonable to say that they have taken away a right.
3
Yeah I wasn't arguing with you. I remember when AAJ pushed for that regulation
2
I like how the "reasonable/interested" response is apparently, the real issue is how this headline [for a website that makes money off clicks] is hyperbolic
9
Thank you. Consumerist, my #1 resource for the hottest takes on constitutional law. Scotusblog makes things seem so complicated
6
Very much true, no Constitutional rights were taken away. The Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 allows for arbitration.
-2†
To the extent that the FAA (in combination with adhesion contracts with arguably unconscionable terms) effectively eliminates someone's ability to pursue legal recourse against an unlawful deprivation of property, one can argue it's a due process violation.
Alternatively, one can argue (again - you have to get past an unconscionability argument first) that they constitute a 7th amendment deprivation of right to a jury trial for civil cases.
In both instances, the hurdle is proving that mandatory binding arb clauses are unconscionable in a consumer adhesion contract - unlikely under existing case law. If you could get there - though - then the FAA (or at least that portion of it) could be considered unconstitutional.
2
Binding mandatory arbitration in a consumer setting is really problematic for a host of reasons - mostly relating to uninformed signing of adhesion contracts that basically eliminates the possibility of group litigation.
But this guy tries to waaaaaay oversimplify the issue with some pretty inane hyperbole.
10
"Both sides are the same"
-someone who is full of shit and doesn't see shit like this. Republicans fuck regular people.
8
A) I'm mostly on your side here, but
B) this issue isn't quite that simple. Blocking the CFPB rule likely would result in lower fees/rates and better rewards, since litigation costs to the banks would go down (those costs are inevitably spread to all consumers). The cost of these better rates, of course, is your ability to pursue remedies in court or via class action.
It's not exactly pure evil to believe that the benefit is worth the cost there. I certainly don't believe that, but I can readily see how someone could. Especially since a large portion of Republican policy makers simply don't see themselves as needing to be in a position to use the courts because "we follow the rules so everything works out."
This is the same rationale that allows folks to think that "well, if they had just done what that nice officer had told them to do, none of this would have happened..."
2
Do you really think that banks all of a sudden are going to lower fees and rates cause "oh gee look we're suddenly saving money, let's pass those savings on to our customers"?
4
I can't believe I'm in the position of defending corporate banks so let me be clear: I agree with you that they will take any advantage that they can get to drive up profits and don't particularly care about consumers.
That said, it's an economics truism that operating costs of a business get passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices. This is true for taxes, litigation expenses, labor costs, er al.
To the extent that a bank's litigation costs go up - so will fees. Of course, this is spread over a consumer base of tens of thousands, so the impact isn't felt particularly acutely. Indeed - this is actually good social policy (the society subsidizes individuals who are harmed so as to make them whole. Better that we all pay $1 than one unlucky bastard have to pay a million).
You are right that corporations and banks will take any excuse to make a buck, and they will do so here. You're also right, though, that cost savings generally don't "trickle down" the same way. Prices are sticky, and once a bank has convinced their customers that $3.50 ATM fees are normal, they're not likely to reduce them just because they can while still preserving their margin. Barring other forces, they'll keep their margin.
The only force that really acts to push "sticky" prices down when costs go down is market competition. It just takes one to start the spiral. Once margins have increased such that BoA feels they can adjust prices down to attract consumers away from other high fee banks, they may do so (on the theory that market share capture matters more than immediate profits). Then everyone else has to match or get priced out.
We see this acutely with gas prices all the time. Oil prices go down and then there's a standoff among the gas stations to see if everyone will stand at their current prices or undercut their competition. The moment one guy moves, the others follow.
Again - note that precisely because prices are sticky and I don't believe in the efficacy of trickle down theory I agree that consumer arbitration is shitty policy - id rather have the stick of class action litigation than an extra quarter off my ATM fees. That doesn't mean, though, that the blanket idea of cost pass-through is crap.
PS - wrote from my phone, so please forgive typos )
0
Actually, the data indicate that arbitration isn't actually any cheaper than litigation. So it's unclear how this is a savings for companies.
3
For individual cases that's generally true (since attorney fees and discovery costs don't get bad until you're litigating serious money). Note, though, that this doesn't factor in the cost savings of suppressing the bringing of litigation in the first place. Few people bother to go to arb.
The benefit of arb ageeements for the companies is breaking apart class actions though. In THAT context, the savings are enormous, especially when combined with the general suppression of individual litigation that might have bothered if they could do so as a class member.
3
Good point - I'm used to seeing things from the plaintiff's perspective.
2
Believing in trickle down economics from banks to consumers is nuts. These are for profit corporations that are beholden to their shareholders not their customers. If they can figure out a way to add more fees and pay out less damages when they cross the line they absolutely will. You only have to look at things like ATM fees to see how absurd banks will take it once they realize they have a new revenue stream to exploit.
2
I can't believe I'm in the position of defending corporate banks so let me be clear: I agree with you that they will take any advantage that they can get to drive up profits and don't particularly care about consumers.
That said, it's an economics truism that operating costs of a business get passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices. This is true for taxes, litigation expenses, labor costs, er al.
To the extent that a bank's litigation costs go up - so will fees. Of course, this is spread over a consumer base of tens of thousands, so the impact isn't felt particularly acutely. Indeed - this is actually good social policy (the society subsidizes individuals who are harmed so as to make them whole. Better that we all pay $1 than one unlucky bastard have to pay a million).
You are right that corporations and banks will take any excuse to make a buck, and they will do so here. You're also right, though, that cost savings generally don't "trickle down" the same way. Prices are sticky, and once a bank has convinced their customers that $3.50 ATM fees are normal, they're not likely to reduce them just because they can while still preserving their margin. Barring other forces, they'll keep their margin.
The only force that really acts to push "sticky" prices down when costs go down is market competition. It just takes one to start the spiral. Once margins have increased such that BoA feels they can adjust prices down to attract consumers away from other high fee banks, they may do so (on the theory that market share capture matters more than immediate profits). Then everyone else has to match or get priced out.
We see this acutely with gas prices all the time. Oil prices go down and then there's a standoff among the gas stations to see if everyone will stand at their current prices or undercut their competition. The moment one guy moves, the others follow.
Again - note that precisely because prices are sticky and I don't believe in the efficacy of trickle down theory I agree that consumer arbitration is shitty policy - id rather have the stick of class action litigation than an extra quarter off my ATM fees. That doesn't mean, though, that the blanket idea of cost pass-through is crap.
PS - wrote from my phone, so please forgive typos )
1
Whoa how did I end up in the r/politics sub?
7
I actually feel like the discussion here has been remarkably on point with little over-the-top ridiculousness.
I shudder to think what this same topic would look like in r/politics.
6
what this same topic would look like in r/politics
"BREAKING: BLUMPF REVOKES HABEAS CORPUS"
1
Hey, us churners are able to have a deep and thoughtful discussion too. I am actually pretty impressed.
2
While not great, this headline is WAY WAY OFF
6
Man if the Senate filibuster ever goes away then we are going to get fucked dry six ways from sunday
3†
Its a lot harder these days. To force a vote on a bill (Cloture), you needed 60 votes (meaning 41 opposing senators could obstruct). The senate democrats changed the rules with a simple majority to only require only 51 votes to call Cloture with some exceptions.
Thanks to Pence breaking ties, the US government has been able to pass a lot of laws really quickly. http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-first-100-days-laws-passed-compared-obama-bush-clinton-2017-4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Events_of_November_2013
3
I mean, that's a pretty misleading statement of the thing given that no "nuclear option" has been implemented for legislation at all.
Reid and the Dems moved the requirement down to a simple majority for all executive and judicial appointments BELOW the Supreme Court level. McConnell then added Supreme Court nominations.
No one has touched legislation filibuster rules.
Note: after posting I realized that maybe you were including the budget reconciliation process? That's analytically very, very different because it just bypasses filibuster rules - but only for budgetary tweaks. That's the process that McConnell is hoping to use for health care legislation, but in large part he's restricted by the "budget only" requirement.
Of course, they could just change the rules on that too. Senate procedure is fun!
4
I didn't mean to mislead, I was just wrong. Thanks for that.
3
Fair enough!
1
I'm not sure I understand your links; the wikipedia one says the filibuster was removed for nominations, not laws. And the Business Insider link says he's been passing a bunch of meaningless stuff, almost on the level of being 'cosmetic', so I'd imagine that's why the legislative filibuster wouldn't be used for that.
2
Can someone make an ELI5 summary of this?
3
Federal Arbitration Act makes arbitration clauses in contracts binding.
Banks put binding arbitration clauses in all their contracts, thereby disallowing court actions and (more importantly) class actions.
CFPB passes a regulation that says binding mandatory arbitration in a consumer context isn't allowable by a simple contract of adhesion.
Congress is now moving to block the CFPB rule.
Edit: note that this is a purposefully simplified explanation. See the rest of the post for the more complete versions.
8
Ah thank you. Appreciate the explanation.
2
Every time you initiate a chargeback, you strip the merchant of their constitutional right to a day in court.
Can you imagine using a credit card that required all merchant disputes to be resolved in court?
2†
Your argument proves the point. If you win chargeback against the merchant, the merchant can generally pursue you in court for the balance owed. Chargeback resolution is not binding arbitration. It is only final in the sense that the bank will not intervene further.
The only reason you never hear about it is because it is usually impractical and also bad PR for most businesses to sue their customers.
Your second argument is a strawman. No one is proposing that all bank-consumer disputes must go to court. The issue at hand is whether banks should be able to prohibit all court action and restrict to binding arbitration only.
17
Nothing in the rule prevents the parties from agreeing to arbitrate after the dispute occurs, only predispute agreements. And even if the contract said court only, you could still informally negotiate. You're being hyperbolic.
2
Wow, this discussion got serious real quick.
2
This seems like more of a soapbox for the author to write about their opinions on constitutional law, which is even more apparent when they concede the Supreme Court has ruled contrary.
-1†
Haha, this is why I only use a debit card! I always knew credit cards were for suckers!
-3†
Banks still issue debit cards lmfao
1
so do credit unions.
also, nice job missing the joke.
0
This arbitration shit is getting out of hand, there's got to be some law or something that could be passed to prevent people from being forced into arbitration.
In a consumer context, the CFPB regulations are really the best shot at limiting mandatory arbitration. But between Trump and a republican-led house/senate, it's more likely that the CFPB goes on the chopping block soon.
Not to get too political but why would any non-rich person vote Republican. This is a serious question, why do you think poor people in Alabama vote Republican when every law they pass seem to go against their best interest.
In addition to abortion and guns, as other posters had mentioned, there is a serious problem on both sides, wherein people choose to believe facts that support their politics, rather than figure out what the facts are and then deciding what political platform bests addresses the facts. I mean, the fact that there are Sandy Hook "truthers" out there is so frightening.
Plenty of reasons. I'll try not to get to preachy, but by the very nature of the post, it will get political.
First and foremost, abortion. If you believe that life begins at conception, then killing an unborn child for anything other than medical necessity to save the life of the mother is murder. Full stop. When the modern Democratic party supports free abortion on demand with no limits (like what they just passed in Oregon), you can support every other Democratic policy, but if you believe abortion is murder, then you can't in good conscience vote Democrat because that would be Material Cooperation in Evil.
Gay marriage. Although popular opinion is shifting, and I think I remember the support for gay marriage recently reached either a majority or a plurality of Americans, it's still a new radical idea. Although the issue has been decided (by the supreme court, but that's a later bullet point), the fact remains that the left have been acting like sore winners in this case. If someone believes that homosexual actions are a sin, participating in a gay wedding is also material cooperation in evil. However, if someone wants to be a conscientious objector and not cater, arrange flowers for, or photograph a gay wedding, they will have the gaystappo sicced on them. The Republican party (when they're not being gutless cowards) at least try to pass state level RFRAs (Religious Freedom Restoration Acts) to prevent that kind of abuse. The next argument is a slippery slope argument, but so far slippery slope arguments have been proven right in this area of policy. In California, the legislature was trying to not allow religious universities to have policies based on the morality of their religion. The fear is that sooner or later, they're going to keep pushing, and it's going to get to the point that any church that follows biblical teaching and restricts marriage to a man and a woman, will face the threat of losing their non-profit status for discrimination.
Guns. Americans like their guns. Democrats keep pushing for gun control laws. In Heller vs DC, the four dissenting justices basically argued that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms, directly contradicting the second amendment which makes it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right that predates the formation of the government, and specifically prohibits the federal government from infringing on that right. That means that something that is probably a good idea (like FBI background checks to buy a gun), are still completely unconstitutional.
Supreme Court. The supreme court is behaving more and more like an unelected legislative body. The four leftist judges (Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer), have a reputation of voting the Democratic party line rather than debating the constitutionality of laws that are being challenged. This is especially egregious in the abortion (yes I know that happened in '73, it wasn't these justices that made that decision) and gay marriage debate where the nation's laws were overturned because the supreme court invented a right to those two things. Plenty of people had said that gay marriage would end up being decided based on how fabulous Justice Kennedy felt when he work up the day that he had to decide which way he would come down (spoiler: he did in fact feel sufficiently fabulous that day).
Economic. Hand outs may have a short term positive impact, but they result in long term generational poverty (see Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, and other Democrat-run cities) due to perverse incentives like rewarding single motherhood (which is the single greatest indicator for poverty and crime in America). Also, charities generally do a better job than government programs. This is more of a higher level arguments, but Keynesian spending results in a less volatile economy, but also a slower growing one. Our current tax-borrow-print-spend fiscal and monetary policy is resulting in 2% GDP growth as opposed to the 4% historical numbers, but with smaller crashes and slower recoveries. To be fair, the current Republican party completely sucks on this point and are basically Democrat lite, but the last time someone tried this (1920 Stock Market crash, Calvin Coolidge), the crash was sharp, and the recovery was steep. Coolidge cut taxes, cut spending, fired federal employees, and that set the fundamentals for the roaring 20s. The next time a crash happened, 1929,
FDR tried the exact opposite approach, and he created the great depression, turning what should have been a 1-2 year depression into an 11 year monstrosity.Hoover (admittedly a Republican) tried the exact opposite, and FDR doubled down on his policies, causing the Great Depression to last 11 years instead of 1-2 years that depressions had historically lasted.Edit: Writing stream of consciousness in the middle of the night sometimes results in you writing stuff that's factually incorrect. Fixed that now.
Taxes. People like to keep their money and hate paying taxes. Republicans promise (but rarely deliver) to cut taxes and spending. What they usually do, cutting taxes without cutting spending just results in the need to have future taxes higher, so it's really a wash.
Regulatory. We have far too many regulations in the country, and what they do is prevent small businesses from becoming big businesses. A big business with an in-house legal team, and/or lawyers on retainer can throw people at the regulations and go to court if needed. For a small business, regulatory compliance can be a huge cost, and legal fees of going to court can probably finish a small business, even if they win. Also, regulations with criminal penalties have no place in a Republic. The legislative branch cannot legislate its powers away to the executive branch. Republicans are at least better than Democrats on this issue, but still, it's more of a case of passing less regulations than cutting them. This particular example is one of Republicans trying to cut one of the very few regulations that should exist. You don't have a right to sign away your rights, and being able to argue a tort in front of a jury is one of those.
Land. This goes towards the Bundys out West, not someone in Povertyville, Alabama. The Constitution allows the federal government to own enough land for a Capitol (Washington DC), forts, magazines arsenals, docks, etc. That means that the federal government can own land in DC, and enough land for military purposes outside of DC. Owning of additional land is implicitly prohibited by the fact that it's not explicitly granted, and the tenth amendment says that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government belongs to the states or the people. However, the supreme court has long since ignored the tenth amendment and inverted the constitution to the point that anything is OK as long as it's not explicitly forbidden. This does mean that National Parks are unconstitutional. I'm a fan of them, and I'd love to have an amendment to make them legal.
Law and order. Republican local governments generally support the police, don't coddle criminals, and don't release criminals out on the streets.
Foreign policy. Democrats seem to want to suck up to all the worst countries in the world, Republicans want a foreign policy based on America being the big dog on the stage. Although, the Republicans do seem a little too eager to get into wars.
NAMATBMTAM. Not all muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are muslim. Islam has been at war with the West from its founding. The Democratic party wants to stick their heads in the sand on this point and pretend that importing thousands of unvetted muslims from a war-torn country is not a recipe for letting terrorists sneak in with the refugees.
Refugees. It costs 10 times as much to bring in a refugee from the middle east to the US than it is to relocate them to Saudi Arabia or another ME country. Each one you bring here instead of to a closer country is sentencing 9 to be stuck in Syria if you have a fixed budget. Democrats want to bring them here.
Immigration. Illegal immigration depresses wages for low skilled workers, especially in housecleaning, child care, construction, and landscaping. That means that you can afford a Guatemalan nanny for your kids and the contractor building your deck gets a truck full of Mexicans that are looking for a gig by the Home Depot to get you the cheapest bid, but it does mean that those paths to get out of poverty are closed to people that are here legally and playing by the rules. Democrats want to open the floodgates to illegal immigration because the average political leaning of immigrants, especially those from Mexico and South America are to the left of the US center, which they hope will translate into more votes for them in the future.
National Parks are not unconstitutional. Your personal (and wrong) interpretation of the Constitution is contradicted by over a century of legislation and court decisions at every level.
Economic- weird how you don't mention rich cities (San Francisco, Seattle, Denver, New York) that drive most of the U.S. Economy but are also run by Democrats. Also weird how places run by Republicans that are very poor and underdeveloped (Mississippi, Rural Arkansas, Rural West Virginia) don't rate a mention.
Regulatory- also supported by centuries of precedent, laws, and court cases. You're just wrong. The Supreme Court consistently says you're wrong.
Supreme Court and gay marriage- the 10th amendment says that people have all kinds of rights not enumerated in the constitution, unless its something you don't like, at which point it becomes a "made up" right. Either people have natural rights or they don't. You don't get to pick and choose based on your personal prejudices. Also, strict constructionism says you can't interpret the "intent" of the Constitution, just what is written down. The 14th Amendment does not say "except gays".
Guns- weird how the 2nd Amendment is the only one in the Bill of Rights subject to absolutely no boundaries whatsoever. Except the framers forgot to write that part down, but they did remember to include the words "well-regulated militia".
Also, how did FDR create the Great Depression when it began in October 1929 and he entered office in March of 1933? This is basic chronology here.
You're entitled to your opinions, but pretending they are some kind of universal truths is bad form.
r/quityourbullshit
The philosophy here is realy stark for a European, do customers not have the right to goods and services that are safe fit for purpose and as advertised?
"Coolidge cut taxes, cut spending, fired federal employees, and that set the fundamentals for the roaring 20s. The next time a crash happened, 1929, FDR tried the exact opposite approach, and he created the great depression, turning what should have been a 1-2 year depression into an 11 year monstrosity."
Lol. Did you even graduate High Schoool? There is so much pseudo intellectual bullshit throughout this whole post. Your "facts" are freaking hilarious.
On the abortion issue, Democratic policies to improve sex education and access to contraceptives are radically more effective at decreasing the number of abortions than bans are. It's hard for me to understand how someone can seriously claim to be against abortion and then vote for a party whose policies are consistently shown to keep it happening.
"National parks are unconstitutional."
The argument here is that since it's not a power explicitly granted in the Constitution, is unconstitutional.
So therefore, the following are also unconstitutional:
The strategic petroleum reserve
The FCC
The Federal Reserve
FEMA
Agricultural buybacks
The postal service
Federal flood insurance
... About a zillion other things
"The state is currently moving closer to adopting a bill that would subject religious higher-education institutions to regulations forbidding them to act on their religious tenets if their students receive state grants to support their studies"
If you receive tax payer dollars, you fucking better believe they should not discriminate.
<insert "excellent" in Mr. Burns' voice>
Okay, what are some examples? Everybody throws around this "too many regulations" line as if it's self-evident.
Wow, please no one read the post above and think this person is offering you an evenhanded view of anything whatsoever. "Democrats want to open the floodgates to illegal immigration"? That's false. Democrats want to fix the legal immigration system and offer a path to legalization for people who are already here because it is simply unreasonable to remove all of them.
"importing thousands of unvetted muslims"? Good joke bud.
You make some great points to explain why the poor support republicans but blaming FDR for the depression isn't one of them. He took office in 1933, well over 3 years after your 1-2 year blip.
FDR didn't walk on water, and reasonable people can argue over the effectiveness of the New Deal vs WW2, but many of the regulations he implemented helped prevent precisely that kind of catastrophic crash and aftermath. Crashes still happen but they reverberate far less severely through the rest of the economy.
But otherwise great post & points.
I'll disagree with most of these until the day I die, but that's a hell of an articulation of policy principles.
Thanks for taking the time to do it!
Also, the point of his post is why do poor people not realize they are being played with the use of social issues and your first two are social issues. If you want to stop being screwed so you're in a position to put your other issues at the forefront--you have to break the economic issues first. While we are all fighting about abortion, the 1% are making BANK.
The reply above is great, as it sums up all of the right-wing rhetoric that's infected most of the conservatives here in the USA over the past 30 years (some conservatives now refer to themselves as 'libertarians,' but libertarians are basically just dudes who don't want to get up at 8 am on Sunday to go to church, and who also want to bang ladies without having to marry them and smoke dope without getting arrested. Which are things I also want to do, but I don't get that worked up about trying to justify it). So let's explore the meaning of this post and it's thirteen bullet points. That's a full clip of bullet points! I kid.
Now, some of our foreign audience members might look at this post and think, "wait, what the fuck could abortion or guns or Islam possibly have to do with a consumer protection bill that's working it's way through congress?" Well, it's a good thing I am here to tell you!!! It's an instructive insight into American politics over the past 25 years. Let's recap what just happened in that post:
What this bill revision would do: You go into a bank, sign up for an account or a loan. Included in the fine print somewhere it says something like, "if we do something shitty and figure out how to steal your money, your only recourse is binding arbitration. We will pay you a fraction of the money we stole from you, and in return you cannot sue us in a court for more money, nor are you allowed to talk about this settlement for x amount of years. And if you do, we'll sue you." And if you don't like it you can just go to another bank......that has the exact same fine print. Because it's more important to offer people the illusion of choice, you see, because........ America Freedom Choice®.
So, any normal person reading this would think "well, there's a bunch of lobbyists and lawyers who work for banks on one side of the equation. And on the other side is...... no one. Let me ask myself some questions:
But if you live in America, you've not yet asked yourself the most important question. It's THE question that completely invalidates all the other questions you can ask yourself about basic survival.
The question is this: 1) BUT.....WHAT....IS....MY....IDEOLOGY? After you've answered this question, there's no more questions; your ideology has you covered. So when someone asks a serious question like "In the context of this specific article, why would someone who'd be adversely effected by this bill possibly be in favor of it?" Ideology has your answer: "Abortion Guns Taxes Immigration Refugees Land Regulatory." I mean, how could you possibly NOT understand that answer? Person asks a specific question within the context of an article, and Ideology has answered. Wait, you're not aware of the link between abortion, Muslim terrorism, and predatory payday loan legislation? Ideology is here to clear that up for you. You brainwashed lamestream snowflake. Next, you'll want some sort of participation medal, which is also destroying America. Ideology only allows for prizes awarded for being THE BEST in a competitive marketplace, rather than an arbitrarily meaningless participation trophy. But thanks for the fucking gold, stranger!
If you're confused, you should be.
Lost me at "not all Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims". That just purely ignoring all the other "terror" committed by non-browns. It's fanciful
So here's the best part for all those right constitutionalist; you know that part where it says separation of Church and State. I'd say that's a pretty big part of what this country was founded on since if you read history books the pilgrims fled England due to religious persecution.
So all these right winged Jesus fuckers who claim the only thing holier than the constitution is the Bible are idiots. I think a better way to answer the initial post is: it's because they're stupid. Plain and simple they're uneducated believe that the Republican Party is the party of Jesus and it will lead them to the land of milk and honey. And the Dems don't help themselves by never playing into their feeble ignorant minds.
I used to be a registered republican because I vote purely on fiscal issues but I could not take it anymore. The party is now the Jesus party and until this country stops regressing and voting on religious beliefs we'll continue to have dipshits like Trump as president t
I appreciate you posting this. It's hard to find the other viewpoint. Reddit seems to have a strong hive mind at times and they feel the need to mitigate any opinion that isn't popular belief by being patronizing or accusatory. I don't know how much of this is factual considering I wasn't around during timelines stated nor do I know enough about policy at the time surrounding the great depression, but it opens up a food for thought opportunity to explore that unfortunately I don't see all that often on here. I don't mind playing with other people's ideas but I prefer to do my own research rather than that presented as common sense. That goes for both sides of the party line. If it's so common sense, it would be just as easy to arrive to the same conclusion.
Thanks for posting.
^ This. Spot on. As someone who has lived in Alabama for the past 3 years, I can 100% stand behind this and say that these are the issues that Alabamian's care about most and they align quite nicely with GOP policies.
Also, as a side note, totally love the NAMATBMTAM acronym and plan on using it from here on out.
Reds need these dividing interest so the party can exist.
If the party was for common ground amd results.
The Goal of Reducing Abortions Overall while protecting the baby and mother. Increase condom and contraception use. Freedom of having personal and health options without State interference. You can be both pro-life, pro-choice. It doesn't have be one camp only.
Single shot muzzle loading guns and manual operated gun should have few restrictions which preserves the right to bear arms. Semi-Auto to Automatic gun should be restricted. Grenade launchers, RPG, cannons are very restricted. The framers had no idea how powerful and mass produce gun could be.
Marriage Equality, two adults in a civil union regardless of race, religion, sex.
Handout Reform. Improve broken households and reducing youth crime with mentors and community support. Mary was a single mom, look how Jesus turned out.
Ter·ror·ist-a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Look up the FBI/UN terrorist stats, most of attacks are domestic Americans. 911 was preventable and other high threat nation already had multi layered countermeasures. Hijacking is nothing new. OK City bombing, Abortion shooting/bombing, Atlanta bombings were non-Arab. US arm forces also terrorize the Arab world with 1,000s of drone strikes and car bombings.
For Muslims terrorist, who funded these Arab extremist in the 1980s and let them network with each other? US CIA, Saudi Arab, Egypt. US has bases in Arab world, supports Palestinian occupation, and illegal settlement according to UN. Talk about fanning and funding the extremist flame.
I agree with most of your points, but your argument regarding Heller is false. In Heller, the conservative strict constructionist created a new right based on the idea that the constitution envisioned a technological innovation that did not exist when it was written. So the strict constructionists rewrote the Constitution, while the dissenting justices were specifically citing the text of the Second Amendment which mentions regulation as a necessary part of a right to bear arms.
I haven't considered myself a Republican since my early 20s, but you have just here crystallized why I will never be a Democrat (save the law and order portion -- our criminal justice system as it stands is far too flawed for me to rally behind it -- respect for the police and justices, but also fear and a call for reform).
Really beautiful. Thank you kind redditor.
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^(Info ^/ ^Contact)
Because the Democrats won't leave my guns alone and I pay too much in taxes already. I'm all on board with gay marriage and decriminalization of marijuana but democrats lose a lot of middle of the road folks on the 2nd amendment nonsense.
What Democrat has asked you to take your guns? I'm a gun owner and an avid duck hunter - no law I've seen in the last 10 years would've affected me.
It's surprising how true this is. Take my ability to get something I feel I should be able to, because of an arbitrary law that supposed to make me safer. Then make it arbitrary between states and yeah that's infuriating.
Though the same argument could be made for drugs, but I don't personally agree with it.
What about the Democrats that want universal background checks? Or mandatory once a year safety classes or thinges like that? Do they lose it cause they want some regulations or is it just when they say they want to ban things? Genuine question as I'm curious what an actual nondemocrat gun owner thinks.
Second Amendment nonsense is what I call the people who make their voting decision on the right to own and carry a deadly weapon.
What you're describing is statistically a fanatical position. A very small percentage of the electorate says that gun ownership is an absolute right.
For my money gun regulation is mostly a waste of time though there are some common sense things that Republicans and Libertarians oppose anyway, for example the no-fly no gun list. But it's not because these are otherwise sensible people, it's because these people are so radical that it's not worth engaging in the fight for something that doesn't ultimately achieve the end. The ultimate end is a resolution to gun violence, and that's achieved with Comprehensive social welfare not gun regulation.
I enjoy the people on a subforum dedicated entirely to gaming financial systems claiming they vote Republican because we need to stop poor people from trying to game financial systems.
I consider myself Libertarian, but don't have difficulty understanding this. Democrats have made no attempts to appeal to the rural population. They've been pretty blatant about not giving a fuck about poor people in Alabama, and constantly act as if they're an inferior population that should just follow the lead. All the republican party has to do is appeal to them on a couple of easy issues that they really don't have any self-interest in (guns and abortion), and their vote is solidified.
Not sure if you realize this, but poor people in Alabama also qualify for welfare, Medicaid, and Social Security. These are all programs that Republicans would end.
Under Democrats, rural areas are massive net recipients for federal spending, and urban areas are net donors.
Your post is another great example of the kind of misinformation that conservatives and Libertarians spread about Democrats. I'm not saying there aren't legitimate reasons not to vote Democrat, but nobody lies about Republicans and Libertarians like they lie about Democrats.
abortion and guns
I knew a hardcore Christian family that wholly supported Newt Gringrich on the sole fact that they believed he was a fundamentalist Christian. I'm not sure if they knew of his past or not, though. I'm pretty sure there are a minority of people that vote based on religious reasons.
One word: Abortion.
The thing about that is republicans several times have had the majority in the house, senate, supreme court, and presidency but still abortion is legal. So voters really should be considering multiple issues.
20 years ago? hands down, abortion.
Now? I think for a lot of people it is just to be anti-liberal. The Obama administration swung the pendulum hard to the left, and now it's swinging right with all that backlash/momentum.
IMHO
HAHAHAHAHAHA, thanks, I really needed a good laugh. Obama was a centrist at best, the US has no left. The rest of the world views politicians like Bernie as center-left, or just plain old left. The US views him as fringe far left.
I don't know if it's really swinging right in terms of public opinion, changing the presidency is what caused his huge shift in policy. I haven't seen any poll that shows issues that could be identified as Liberal (Abortion/Obamacare/gun control/consumer protections) decreasing in their poll numbers since Trump took office. In fact what i have seen is Obamacare becoming more popular as it becomes clear that Republicans have no real plan to replace or improve it.
Obviously you can point to the fact that Trump got elected as a result of that shift, but he lost the popular vote by a significant margin and that contest seemed to have much more to do with the Clinton/Trump than actual policies Americans wanted to change up.
I don't care either way about Guns, and I'm definitely pro choice. But I typically vote Republican because I don't like how large Dem's government and programs are. I also don't agree with how much I have to contribute to lower class. I don't believe in SS. So unless someone like Trump or Cruz come along, I'm usually voting Red.
Critically disabled person here: your not believing in SS is something that could actually kill people. I rely on the SSA to give me a living stipend and qualify me for Medicaid. Without the program your viewpoint quite literally sentences crippled people to death.
There is no universe in which it's justifiable to ask the disabled to just sort of die because we stent born like you. There are no equivalent programs, SSI is the only national program that keeps the disabled financially safe.
I'm not here to shit on you, I'm just telling you that as things are right now SS shouldn't be a debate, it shouldn't even be a discussing we are having. There are millions of us who literally cannot work and don't deserve to be treated as second class because people don't like that we exist.
Why does the size of the program matter? Are you also uncomfortable about the size of the economy? What's relevant is the efficiency of the program and how quickly the economy grows when exposed to this program. History has shown that under generally democratic economic management, the economy grows much faster than under Republican style economic management. The debt also grows much more slowly under Democrats than under Republicans. Don't believe me? Look it up.
Because some poor/middle class realize that punitive taxation, wealth redistribution and big gov't are counter-productive. It slows economic growth, makes it harder for them to become wealthy, thus ensuring a larger divide between the haves/have nots. Also saying "not to get too political" and then writing something extremely political is disingenuous at best, but this entire thread is partisan nonsense anyway, so you can be forgiven. Let the downvotes rain down!
...all things this country has in much lesser degree than every other first world country on the planet.
I do not believe that most working class whites in this country believe the rich are unfairly taxed (and it's not true--the mega rich in america pay nothing approaching a fair share of taxes, and continue to accumulate wealth at a far greater pace than anyone below them). However the WWC is susceptible to fear of 'the other' when looking for an explanation as to why they are stagnating, and the right-wing works that angle for all it's worth.
The only about that is that everything after "realize that" is either your opinion or false.
[deleted]
In your day to day life, if you do something against your own self interest because you think it's right, they call you virtuous. If you vote against your own self interest because you think it's right, they call you an idiot.
Some people believe in small government whether it directly benefits them or not.
Red voter believe in falsehood and dividing spin as reality and common ground. If they believe in more progressive action than the voter base of Republican party dissolves.
Abortion, when rates are going way down according to CDC. You can be both pro-life and pro-choice. No need to villainize "baby killers" people for making tough decisions for health of the fetus and mother. Condoms and other contraception reduce unwanted pregnancy and abortion significantly
Gun Control on high powered small arms. Sure have all the single shots firearm to bear arms and hunt. But semi-auto, full auto, cannons, and grenade launchers should always restricted.
Equal Marriage Rights regardless of race, class, sex. The gay scare is rally point for people pretend to be for individual freedom and rights.
"better than you'ism"
I one day hope to be rich...so yeah, that's my reason.
This guy is getting downvoted, but it's an honest answer to the question. They see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
You're more likely to get rich under a government that is more interested in educating you than jailing you.
A state can easily regulate arbitration rules if the Feds won't. If you want to do business in State X, then you cannot do Y.
But most people don't vote for local politicians.. so this is what they get.
Yeah, no offense but this is totally wrong.
Federal preemption is a bitch. See AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011).
Edit: people should care more about local politics, though.
States could control the business of arbitration (how they rule, if secret) right?
Federal law could 'force' arbitration but its a completely intra state issue if the business has a presence and the plaintiff is in the same state.
Of will they link any business with a multi-state presence to interstate commerce??
States can't regulate arbitration that much, actually. A lot of the effects are preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.
California had (does it still have it?) a law the prevented class action waivers. However, in the case of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, The Supreme Court held that that Federal Arbitration Act preempts such laws which disallow class action waivers.
This is an important ruling that sadly many don't know about. Here is an easy to digest video if that all went zoom, https://youtu.be/gdNHq-_D2HQ.
Remind me in 10 hours
Start your own bank
That's one way, but regulations should also be passed