Re:U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Acti...
by noobermin on Wednesday October 25, 2017 @04:43AM
(#15548452)
While you're right, Dems recieve a lot of Wall Street cash and do their bidding often, here all D's voted against it.[0] Both are "corrupted" to use your words but I'd say one is "worse" at least on this one issue.
[0] And yes, most did it for political reasons I imagine.
Re:U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Acti...
by kalleboo on Wednesday October 25, 2017 @08:30AM
(#15549476)
To expound on your [0], remember that Republicans voted on repealing Obamacare when they knew it was going to be vetoed, but once they were actually in control, suddenly they didn't have enough votes.
Re:U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Acti...
by ifhd on Wednesday October 25, 2017 @03:36PM
(#15553366)
Except the democrats were the ones who put in these rules in the first place.
Re:U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Acti...
by acdha on Wednesday October 25, 2017 @09:17AM
(#15549800)
… and that’s true on almost every issue of importance (climate change, healthcare, etc.). The main exception is deference to national security agencies on things like encryption or detention.
Re:U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Acti...
by defined on Saturday October 28, 2017 @01:55PM
(#15576010)
Nitpick: my word was "corrupt", not "corrupted".
Re:U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Acti...
by akvadrako on Wednesday October 25, 2017 @07:57AM
(#15549305)
This easily could have been an issue raised during a Democratic majority congress and passed with the same story. After all, everybody hates lawyers that get rich while class members get a coupon.
It's not about the issue.
Re:U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Acti...
by alejohausner on Wednesday October 25, 2017 @09:36AM
(#15549945)
You may complain that class-action lawyers get much more money than the plaintiffs, but that's the nature of class actions. They are meant for situations where many indiviuals are harmed, but each harm is too small to justify the cost of a court case. So naturally the plaintiffs get small payouts: each of them suffered a small damage. And the lawyers get big payouts: they handled the paperwork of thousands of clients.
Re:U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Acti...
by ambicapter on Wednesday October 25, 2017 @09:46AM
(#15550034)
> They are meant for situations where many indiviuals are harmed, but each harm is too small to justify the cost of a court case.
Don't they also get used for cases where (spitballing here) half a town gets cancer because the chemical plant in the area has been illegal dumping their effluents next door?
Re:U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Acti...
by howard941 on Wednesday October 25, 2017 @09:55AM
(#15550118)
Those cancer victims aren't getting coupons
Re:U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Acti...
by akvadrako on Wednesday October 25, 2017 @11:54AM
(#15551165)
I wasn't actually saying class actions are bad, but that it makes a workable political excuse.
Re:U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Acti...
by kbrwn on Wednesday October 25, 2017 @08:32AM
(#15549486)
Democrats passed the law that created the agency Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
I'd go even further and say corrupt and evil. Yet these baseless clauses have been around long before the modern GOP, so while I agree with your sentiment, I'd broaden it from "GOP" to "greedy corporates and their government puppets from any political party."