Trump signs resolution killing rule intended to prevent racial bias in auto lending

SB85

Well-Known Member
WASHINGTON — Auto dealers will once again be allowed to mark up the interest rates on auto loans to sell their cars — a practice critics say is racially discriminatory — after President Trump signed a bill striking down a rule discouraging the practice.

The Obama administration adopted the rule in 2013 in response to reports that black and Hispanic car buyers were paying higher interest rates on their loans than white car buyers. These "indirect" loans come from a third-party financial institution, which returns part of that higher interest rate back to the car dealership.

Lenders and car dealers say that system gives salesmen the flexibility they need to offer discounted auto loans to their best customers.

It's the 16th time Trump has signed a resolution to strike down a regulation under the Congressional Review Act, a formerly obscure law that allows Congress to have the final say over agency regulations.

The auto lending rule broke new ground, however, because it had been on the books for five years and wasn't technically a regulation.

Instead, it was a lower-level guidance document explaining how the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection would enforce the anti-discrimination provisions of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

Ordinarily, Congress has 60 legislative days to overturn a rule under the Congressional Review Act, or it goes into effect. But because it was a guidance document, it didn't go through the normal regulatory process.

Car dealers, lenders and and other interested groups never had the chance to provide comments on the rule, and the Obama administration never submitted it to Congress for review.

It was only after prodding from Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., that the Government Accountability Office determined that the guidance was actually a rule and submitted it to Congress for review, allowing an up-or-down vote without possibility of a Senate filibuster.

The House voted to repeal the rule 234 to 175, and the Senate 51 to 47. Both votes were largely along party lines, with Democrats voting to keep the rule


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/21/trump-signs-resolution-killing-auto-lending-rule/628326002/
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
WASHINGTON — Auto dealers will once again be allowed to mark up the interest rates on auto loans to sell their cars — a practice critics say is racially discriminatory — after President Trump signed a bill striking down a rule discouraging the practice.

The Obama administration adopted the rule in 2013 in response to reports that black and Hispanic car buyers were paying higher interest rates on their loans than white car buyers. These "indirect" loans come from a third-party financial institution, which returns part of that higher interest rate back to the car dealership.

Lenders and car dealers say that system gives salesmen the flexibility they need to offer discounted auto loans to their best customers.

It's the 16th time Trump has signed a resolution to strike down a regulation under the Congressional Review Act, a formerly obscure law that allows Congress to have the final say over agency regulations.

The auto lending rule broke new ground, however, because it had been on the books for five years and wasn't technically a regulation.

Instead, it was a lower-level guidance document explaining how the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection would enforce the anti-discrimination provisions of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

Ordinarily, Congress has 60 legislative days to overturn a rule under the Congressional Review Act, or it goes into effect. But because it was a guidance document, it didn't go through the normal regulatory process.

Car dealers, lenders and and other interested groups never had the chance to provide comments on the rule, and the Obama administration never submitted it to Congress for review.

It was only after prodding from Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., that the Government Accountability Office determined that the guidance was actually a rule and submitted it to Congress for review, allowing an up-or-down vote without possibility of a Senate filibuster.

The House voted to repeal the rule 234 to 175, and the Senate 51 to 47. Both votes were largely along party lines, with Democrats voting to keep the rule


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/21/trump-signs-resolution-killing-auto-lending-rule/628326002/
2 Democratic Senators voted for the bill out while 47 voted against. 22 Democratic Representatives voted for the bill and 175 voted against

@ttystikk @Padawanbater2 does this mean Democrats are complicit in this?. Every Democrat is complicit? Including Bernie.

Which side are you going to join? Surely you can't remain with such a complicit group.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Sanders is not a Democrat
Sure he is. He caucuses with them and wants to be their nomination for prez. He votes with them 93% of the time. If he never associated with them then you'd have a point.

The thing is, just like all other Democrats who voted no, Bernie can't get anything done without joining with Democrats. He uses his association with them to further his own purposes. If all Democrats are complicit because a handful of Democrats voted for this measure then Bernie is complicit too.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Great argument. Top notch. :roll:

But he is when it suits him (and you), isn't he? Are you saying you would not support him if he becomes one again?

Just another example of the intellectual dishonesty of some people.
Why even bother, he has duct tape on the brain.
:that's the joke.jpg: :wall:

He's not a Democrat when the likes of you two retards are saying he should start a 3rd party or should have ran on the Independent ticket, but he is a Democrat when you pull some poorly thought out reasoning out of your ass
 

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
:that's the joke.jpg: :wall:

He's not a Democrat when the likes of you two retards are saying he should start a 3rd party or should have ran on the Independent ticket, but he is a Democrat when you pull some poorly thought out reasoning out of your ass
Actually you are dodging the question. Somebody used your own "logic" against you and now you are trying to wiggle out of answering it like a worm on a griddle.

Maybe nobody will notice.
 

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
:that's the joke.jpg: :wall:

He's not a Democrat when the likes of you two retards are saying he should start a 3rd party or should have ran on the Independent ticket, but he is a Democrat when you pull some poorly thought out reasoning out of your ass
He lost the primary in my state by 16%.

16 fucking percent.

So I said fuck him, if he was that appealing, the polls would show it the day we actually vote.
 

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
2 Democratic Senators voted for the bill out while 47 voted against. 22 Democratic Representatives voted for the bill and 175 voted against

@ttystikk @Padawanbater2 does this mean Democrats are complicit in this?. Every Democrat is complicit? Including Bernie.

Which side are you going to join? Surely you can't remain with such a complicit group.
Wow, the part in green seemed extra important.
 

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
I love the sound of pompous "Progressive" fucks running away. You hear it a lot here, especially between the hours of 2-5 am EDT.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
He lost the primary in my state by 16%.
Where is the logic in using the results of a tainted election as proof of anything?

The narrative from establishment supporting Democrats on RIU is that Trumps win was illegitimate because Russia influenced the election, so it's tough to take you seriously when you make the same allegations in the opposite direction in support of the results of the Democratic primary

If you believe Trumps win to be illegitimate but accept Clintons win, you're being inconsistent in regards to the evidence
 

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
Where is the logic in using the results of a tainted election as proof of anything?

The narrative from establishment supporting Democrats on RIU is that Trumps win was illegitimate because Russia influenced the election, so it's tough to take you seriously when you make the same allegations in the opposite direction in support of the results of the Democratic primary

If you believe Trumps win to be illegitimate but accept Clintons win, you're being inconsistent in regards to the evidence
You people spin as bad as Trump. I'd be fucking embarrassed if everything I believed in was free shit, YT videos, conspiracy theories and Bernie.

There is an actual real world out there. Navigate it.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
You people spin as bad as Trump. I'd be fucking embarrassed if everything I believed in was free shit, YT videos, conspiracy theories and Bernie.

There is an actual real world out there. Navigate it.
You believe the outcome of the 2016 election was influenced by Russia, right?

It's an indisputable fact the 2016 Democratic primary was influenced by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic establishment

-the DNC fed the Clinton campaign debate questions beforehand
-the Clinton campaign funded the DNC since 2015 and had control over all financial and media aspects prior to the primary
-the Clinton campaign had exclusive access to sources in the mainstream media while the Sanders campaign was explicitly denied access
-etc. That's influencing the election..

So unless you're being intellectually dishonest about the pearl clutching being about the actual subversion of Democracy and not the candidate doing the subverting, you would feel the same way about Clinton stealing the Democratic primary as you do about Trump stealing the general, but you don't..


So take the crocodile tears elsewhere and stop wasting my time
 

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
You believe the outcome of the 2016 election was influenced by Russia, right?

It's an indisputable fact the 2016 Democratic primary was influenced by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic establishment

-the DNC fed the Clinton campaign debate questions beforehand
-the Clinton campaign funded the DNC since 2015 and had control over all financial and media aspects prior to the primary
-the Clinton campaign had exclusive access to sources in the mainstream media while the Sanders campaign was explicitly denied access
-etc. That's influencing the election..

So unless you're being intellectually dishonest about the pearl clutching being about the actual subversion of Democracy and not the candidate doing the subverting, you would feel the same way about Clinton stealing the Democratic primary as you do about Trump stealing the general, but you don't..


So take the crocodile tears elsewhere and stop wasting my time
But Bernie isn't a Democrat.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Where is the logic in using the results of a tainted election as proof of anything?

The narrative from establishment supporting Democrats on RIU is that Trumps win was illegitimate because Russia influenced the election, so it's tough to take you seriously when you make the same allegations in the opposite direction in support of the results of the Democratic primary

If you believe Trumps win to be illegitimate but accept Clintons win, you're being inconsistent in regards to the evidence
Sanders won the Democratic Party Nomination in Oregon. But we voted for Democrats in the general. We are complicit.
 
Top