Nothing but a re-distribution of wealth.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/28/d...ent-to-liberal-activist-groups/#ixzz3BtgvUkSB
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/28/d...ent-to-liberal-activist-groups/#ixzz3BtgvUkSB
Dept of Justice gives away BoA settlement to liberal activist groups
- Thread starter Displaced Bama Fan
- Start date
When you have a government that is allowed to redefine is narrow, enumerated powers as virtually limitless powers you get crap like this. All. The. Time. Yay big government! 
From nasdaq.com: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/4-winners-in-the-big-bank-of-america-corp-settlement-cm385758
Pertinent details
I saw the phrase redistribution of wealth thrown about a bit. Why is it redistribution of wealth when a company(or recently acquired company) that preyed upon borrowers, investors and little old ladies is slapped with a relatively inconsequential lawsuit to meekly try and help those that were financially hurt? It apparently wasn't redistribution of wealth when they were cooking up the schemes and books to get rich and million dollar bonuses off of those people who took out mortgages or invested in junk securities.
I guess the moral of the story is that its only redistribution of wealth if its poor people who are getting the money.
(This is an aside to the whole political activist groups getting a possible bunch of cash if BoA doesn't do what it says it was going to do. If you actually read it, it would seem that people are upset that if BoA doesn't fulfill their side of the settlement, the poor people, the ones this is supposed to help who likely wouldn't have money for legal aid, shouldn't be able to get legal aid to take BoA to court. Seriously, cranky over 30M guaranteed if a company doesn't stick to the bargain. 30,000,000/16,000,000,000. You are up in arms over a company that isn't exactly a shining example of business ethics possibly being required to pay 2/10ths of a percent of the settlement if they don't uphold their end of the bargain?)
Pertinent details
The article linked in the original post actually does a bit of stretching with the truth regarding just how money is going to be "doled" out but I digress. Facts aren't always important when frothing at the mouth.nasdaq.com said:
I saw the phrase redistribution of wealth thrown about a bit. Why is it redistribution of wealth when a company(or recently acquired company) that preyed upon borrowers, investors and little old ladies is slapped with a relatively inconsequential lawsuit to meekly try and help those that were financially hurt? It apparently wasn't redistribution of wealth when they were cooking up the schemes and books to get rich and million dollar bonuses off of those people who took out mortgages or invested in junk securities.
I guess the moral of the story is that its only redistribution of wealth if its poor people who are getting the money.
(This is an aside to the whole political activist groups getting a possible bunch of cash if BoA doesn't do what it says it was going to do. If you actually read it, it would seem that people are upset that if BoA doesn't fulfill their side of the settlement, the poor people, the ones this is supposed to help who likely wouldn't have money for legal aid, shouldn't be able to get legal aid to take BoA to court. Seriously, cranky over 30M guaranteed if a company doesn't stick to the bargain. 30,000,000/16,000,000,000. You are up in arms over a company that isn't exactly a shining example of business ethics possibly being required to pay 2/10ths of a percent of the settlement if they don't uphold their end of the bargain?)
Last edited:
The issue is not that there are penalties for misbehavior, it is that the beneficiaries are so clearly and exclusively the political bedfellows of the administration.
Fair enough. When you compile a list of Republican organizations that exist to help poor people sue banks I'll be glad to think this is purely partisan.
Might as well give up Chanson. The occluded world view of many here does not respond to logic and facts.
It is hiding behind the list of liberal organizations that support constitutional limitations.
Well yeah, that is the original whole point.
Some quotes:
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic" - Benjamin Franklin
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."- Thomas Jefferson
"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." - James Madison
That said, IMO this particular episode has more to do with the problem of big government being inherently corrupt verses the historical problem of wealth redistribution.
Last edited:
I originally thought this had to be a mistake, but didn't see the blue font to indicate sarcasm.
Did you really just equate the fraud and shady lending/misrepresentation of risk in the mortgage based securities industry with " the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it?" If so our conversation really has no possible basis upon which we can continue because you think that lying and stealing is a perfectly defensible means by which to make a living.
No, you missed my point. I guess it was poorly phrased on my part. I will try again.
The problem with wealth distribution is about whether the government should be in the business of taking income or anything else from one and giving to another for any reason. IMO opinion the statement you made (whether or not you were just being snarky) is actually accurate. Those of us who believe it is not the business of government to do charity (and in fact are very inefficient at it when they get involved) believe just that.
Fraud, lying and stealing is not a perfectly defensible means to make a living. Stopping this is a proper role of government.
IMO neither of these have anything to do with the issue in the article. It is all cronyism and corruption. It has been from the start of the issue with the government getting involved in Freddie and Fanny with the bad loans, through the bailouts and right up until this episode.
There is way too much false outrage based on questionable if not outright false info on the internet and things aren't always as they first seem.
It's kinda like the government taking money from Bernie Maddoff and redistributing it to the people he stole it from. Unfortunately, unlike Bernie , none of the bankers have gone to jail.
Latest threads
-
-
Question: Chris Youngblood did he commit over the weekend?
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-