10s of millions disguised as ‘consumer relief’ are going to liberal political groups

[TheSanityAnnex]

Imagine if the president of the United States forced America’s biggest banks to funnel hundreds of millions—and potentially billions—of dollars to the corporations and lobbyists who supported his agenda, all while calling it “Main Street Relief.” The public outcry would rightly be deafening. Yet the Obama administration has used a similar strategy to enrich its political allies, advance leftist pet projects, and protect its legacy—and hardly anyone has noticed.
The administration’s multiyear campaign against the banking industry has quietly steered money to organizations and politicians who are working to ensure liberal policy and political victories at every level of government. The conduit for this funding is the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group, a coalition of federal and state regulators and prosecutors created in 2012 to “identify, investigate, and prosecute instances of wrongdoing” in the residential mortgage-backed securities market. In conjunction with the Justice Department, the RMBS Working Group has reached multibillion-dollar settlements with essentially every major bank in America.



The most recent came in April when the Justice Department announced a $5.1 billion settlement with Goldman Sachs. GS 0.76 % In February Morgan Stanley MS 1.34 % agreed to a $3.2 billion settlement. Previous targets were Citigroup C 0.76 % ($7 billion), J.P. Morgan Chase JPM 0.45 % ($13 billion), and Bank of America, BAC 1.55 % which in 2014 reached the largest civil settlement in American history at $16.65 billion. Smaller deals with other banks have also been announced.
Combined, the banks must divert well over $11 billion into “consumer relief,” which is supposed to benefit homeowners harmed during the Great Recession. Yet it is unknown how much, if any, of the banks’ settlement money will find its way to individual homeowners. Instead, a substantial portion is allocated to private, nonprofit organizations drawn from a federally approved list. Some groups on the list—Catholic Charities, for instance—are relatively nonpolitical. Others—La Raza, the National Urban League, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition and more—are anything but.


This is a handout to the administration’s allies. Many of these groups engage in voter registration, community organizing and lobbying on liberal policy priorities at every level of government. They also provide grants to other liberal groups not eligible for payouts under the settlements. Thanks to the Obama administration, and the fungibility of money, the settlements’ beneficiaries can now devote hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to these activities.



The settlements also give banks a financial incentive to fund these groups. Most of the deals give double credit or more against the settlement amount for every dollar in “donations.” Bank of America’s donation list—the only bank to disclose exactly where it sends its money—shows how this benefits liberal groups. The bank has so far given at least $1.15 million to the National Urban League, which counts as if it were $2.6 million against the bank’s settlement. Similarly, $1.5 million to La Raza takes $3.5 million off the total amount of “consumer relief” owed by the bank. There are scores of other examples.


Our analysis of over 80 beneficiaries from Bank of America’s settlement shows that they received, on average, more than 10% of their 2015 budgets from the bank. When other bank checks are added, the amount funneled to these organizations is guaranteed to rise. And the banks have multiple years to pay their total penalties, meaning some liberal interest groups can count on additional funding for years—and election cycles—to come.
As part of their “consumer relief” penalties, Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase must also pay a minimum $75 million to Community Development Financial Ins utions—taxpayer-funded groups propped up by the Obama administration as an alternative to payday lenders. “Housing Counseling Agencies” also get at least $30 million. This essentially cir vents Congress’s recent decision to cut $43 million in federal funds routed to these groups through the Department of Housing and Urban Development.


The politicians who negotiate the settlements as part of the RMBS Working Group have also directed money to their supporters and states. Illinois’s Democratic attorney general Lisa Madigan announced she had secured $22.5 million from February’s Morgan Stanley deal for her state’s debt-ridden pension funds—a blatant payout to public unions. The deals with J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup yielded a further $344 million for both “consumer relief” and direct payments to pension funds.


New York hit the jackpot too. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, also a Democrat and chairman of the RMBS Working Group, arranged for Morgan Stanley to fork over $400 million to New York nonprofits and $150 million to the state.
Despite the best efforts of a few principled legislators late last year, Congress missed an opportunity to amend the Justice Department’s funding bill to stop further handouts. Lawmakers now have another opportunity as Congress enters budget negotiation for fiscal year 2017. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) introduced a bill in April that would prevent government officials from enforcing settlements that funnel money to third parties, and it needs to gain wider traction with his colleagues. The political shakedowns disguised as public service must end.

http://www.wsj.com/article_email/loo...NzM3MDAzMzA0Wj

[boutons_deux]

WSJ! Murdoch toilet paper.

Defending BigFinance, including BigFinance that owns loan-sharking payday lenders.

WSJ pissed that pension funds are getting money that was stolen with BigFinance fees for hedge funds and p/e.

WSJ!

[boutons_deux]

btw, DoJ "prosecution" of BigFinance finished this week.

Only one scapegoated individual, Fabulous Fabrice, quite trying to appeal his nearly $1M fine.

He was only one of 1000s of mid-level finance assholes who did exactly as he did, but escaped.

[Chucho]

^^^SJW talking bad about WSJ. Stop defending Big Left.


The only thing Big Oppressive Left does well is their propaganda.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The OP is an op-ed in the WSJ from a Koch think tank.

Their characterizations are gratuitous and they admit they don't know the accounting.

It's crap.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

^^^SJW talking bad about WSJ. Stop defending Big Left.


The only thing Big Oppressive Left does well is their propaganda.

And another dip likely on an alt account setting himself up on the side of social inequity.

[Chucho]

And another dip likely on an alt account setting himself up on the side of social inequity.

Fuzz, you aren't as smart as you think you are. At all. Tell me, when it comes to social inequity, which is much different from financial inequity, tell me when does personal accountability come into play? And why doesn't accountability have any impact on your idea of social inequity?

I would hope to see a real response from you, but I suspect you're a typical dip in general with no ability to discern between social and financial inequity so your answer will be some stupid Liberal gibberish with zero realistic rationale. I'll get something stupid like "$15 minimum wage" with no handle on why it's more troublesome than beneficial and "tax the rich more" with no correlation that we have the highest standard in living than at anytime in history for a general population.

It all starts with personal accountability. It starts with a highly secular society that refuses to admit they're spoiled and that we are where we are because of typical dip s like you.

And pal, I'm not a sock or alt. I've been here YEARS, I just don't divuldge into conversations on hole forms like this. You do. It speaks volumes. And if I was a sock or alt, it's not hard to get my IP address and match them up to the socks and alts you suspect me to be. I imagine that is just typical Liber deflective behavior or you are so typically dip ty you don't know how to use Google to do that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzz, you aren't as smart as you think you are. At all. Tell me, when it comes to social inequity, which is much different from financial inequity, tell me when does personal accountability come into play? And why doesn't accountability have any impact on your idea of social inequity?

I would hope to see a real response from you, but I suspect you're a typical dip in general with no ability to discern between social and financial inequity so your answer will be some stupid Liberal gibberish with zero realistic rationale. I'll get something stupid like "$15 minimum wage" with no handle on why it's more troublesome than beneficial and "tax the rich more" with no correlation that we have the highest standard in living than at anytime in history for a general population.

It all starts with personal accountability. It starts with a highly secular society that refuses to admit they're spoiled and that we are where we are because of typical dip s like you.

And pal, I'm not a sock or alt. I've been here YEARS, I just don't divuldge into conversations on hole forms like this. You do. It speaks volumes. And if I was a sock or alt, it's not hard to get my IP address and match them up to the socks and alts you suspect me to be. I imagine that is just typical Liber deflective behavior or you are so typically dip ty you don't know how to use Google to do that.

a) The two notions are not mutually exclusive.
b) the social inequity take is derived from you setting yourself up contrary to social justice through your gamergate rhetoric. nothing more but nice wasting of time on a wall of text.

And yup you are a dip on an alt account. VPN's are tough.

[RandomGuy]

Imagine if the president of the United States forced America’s biggest banks to funnel hundreds of millions—and potentially billions—of dollars to the corporations and lobbyists who supported his agenda, all while calling it “Main Street Relief.” The public outcry would rightly be deafening. Yet the Obama administration has used a similar strategy to enrich its political allies, advance leftist pet projects, and protect its legacy—and hardly anyone has noticed.
The administration’s multiyear campaign against the banking industry has quietly steered money to organizations and politicians who are working to ensure liberal policy and political victories at every level of government. The conduit for this funding is the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group, a coalition of federal and state regulators and prosecutors created in 2012 to “identify, investigate, and prosecute instances of wrongdoing” in the residential mortgage-backed securities market. In conjunction with the Justice Department, the RMBS Working Group has reached multibillion-dollar settlements with essentially every major bank in America.



The most recent came in April when the Justice Department announced a $5.1 billion settlement with Goldman Sachs. GS 0.76 % In February Morgan Stanley MS 1.34 % agreed to a $3.2 billion settlement. Previous targets were Citigroup C 0.76 % ($7 billion), J.P. Morgan Chase JPM 0.45 % ($13 billion), and Bank of America, BAC 1.55 % which in 2014 reached the largest civil settlement in American history at $16.65 billion. Smaller deals with other banks have also been announced.
Combined, the banks must divert well over $11 billion into “consumer relief,” which is supposed to benefit homeowners harmed during the Great Recession. Yet it is unknown how much, if any, of the banks’ settlement money will find its way to individual homeowners. Instead, a substantial portion is allocated to private, nonprofit organizations drawn from a federally approved list. Some groups on the list—Catholic Charities, for instance—are relatively nonpolitical. Others—La Raza, the National Urban League, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition and more—are anything but.


This is a handout to the administration’s allies. Many of these groups engage in voter registration, community organizing and lobbying on liberal policy priorities at every level of government. They also provide grants to other liberal groups not eligible for payouts under the settlements. Thanks to the Obama administration, and the fungibility of money, the settlements’ beneficiaries can now devote hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to these activities.



The settlements also give banks a financial incentive to fund these groups. Most of the deals give double credit or more against the settlement amount for every dollar in “donations.” Bank of America’s donation list—the only bank to disclose exactly where it sends its money—shows how this benefits liberal groups. The bank has so far given at least $1.15 million to the National Urban League, which counts as if it were $2.6 million against the bank’s settlement. Similarly, $1.5 million to La Raza takes $3.5 million off the total amount of “consumer relief” owed by the bank. There are scores of other examples.


Our analysis of over 80 beneficiaries from Bank of America’s settlement shows that they received, on average, more than 10% of their 2015 budgets from the bank. When other bank checks are added, the amount funneled to these organizations is guaranteed to rise. And the banks have multiple years to pay their total penalties, meaning some liberal interest groups can count on additional funding for years—and election cycles—to come.
As part of their “consumer relief” penalties, Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase must also pay a minimum $75 million to Community Development Financial Ins utions—taxpayer-funded groups propped up by the Obama administration as an alternative to payday lenders. “Housing Counseling Agencies” also get at least $30 million. This essentially cir vents Congress’s recent decision to cut $43 million in federal funds routed to these groups through the Department of Housing and Urban Development.


The politicians who negotiate the settlements as part of the RMBS Working Group have also directed money to their supporters and states. Illinois’s Democratic attorney general Lisa Madigan announced she had secured $22.5 million from February’s Morgan Stanley deal for her state’s debt-ridden pension funds—a blatant payout to public unions. The deals with J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup yielded a further $344 million for both “consumer relief” and direct payments to pension funds.


New York hit the jackpot too. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, also a Democrat and chairman of the RMBS Working Group, arranged for Morgan Stanley to fork over $400 million to New York nonprofits and $150 million to the state.
Despite the best efforts of a few principled legislators late last year, Congress missed an opportunity to amend the Justice Department’s funding bill to stop further handouts. Lawmakers now have another opportunity as Congress enters budget negotiation for fiscal year 2017. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) introduced a bill in April that would prevent government officials from enforcing settlements that funnel money to third parties, and it needs to gain wider traction with his colleagues. The political shakedowns disguised as public service must end.

http://www.wsj.com/article_email/loo...NzM3MDAzMzA0Wj

So you are saying conservatives don't care about consumers?

[RandomGuy]

a) The two notions are not mutually exclusive.
b) the social inequity take is derived from you setting yourself up contrary to social justice through your gamergate rhetoric. nothing more but nice wasting of time on a wall of text.

And yup you are a dip on an alt account. VPN's are tough.

The thing that struck me, was that the author of the op-ed in the OP, shockingly a right-wing think tank president, missed some interesting things in his ranting.

He appears to equate consumer interest group with "liberal", as if conservatives can't, or won't care about consumers.

Further he seems to think that voter registration drives and community organizing are bad things.

What the does it say about conservative ideology when increasing voter participation and education is a bad "liberal" thing?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The thing that struck me, was that the author of the op-ed in the OP, shockingly a right-wing think tank president, missed some interesting things in his ranting.

He appears to equate consumer interest group with "liberal", as if conservatives can't, or won't care about consumers.

Further he seems to think that voter registration drives and community organizing are bad things.

What the does it say about conservative ideology when increasing voter participation and education is a bad "liberal" thing?

Community organization is the bane of oligarchs.

[RandomGuy]

Community organization is the bane of oligarchs.

That's the thing.

Gun ers keep saying "the 2nd amendment is the right that protects all others."

Bull .

People don't need Goddamn guns to protect your rights. All we need is to be educated and involved, and get out there and ing vote.

If someone's idea of protecting freedom is buying some tool, that is the lazy way out. Kind of appealing to lazy people I guess.

[TheSanityAnnex]

a) The two notions are not mutually exclusive.
b) the social inequity take is derived from you setting yourself up contrary to social justice through your gamergate rhetoric. nothing more but nice wasting of time on a wall of text.

And yup you are a dip on an alt account. VPN's are tough.

What's his other handle detective?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What's his other handle detective?

We've discussed this before. i need to just make a stock post and use that for when you come with this take.

1) How would you know what alt account is which if you were not complicit?
2) Either outcome to the above conditional results in it being pointless if not counterproductive to discuss what my takes are with you.

Now head on back home and your mother some more, dimwit.

[Chucho]

a) The two notions are not mutually exclusive.
b) the social inequity take is derived from you setting yourself up contrary to social justice through your gamergate rhetoric. nothing more but nice wasting of time on a wall of text.

And yup you are a dip on an alt account. VPN's are tough.

LOL. Johnny CantDoForHimself with typical leftist denial and deflection. No answers, just ad-hominem attacks with little to no handle on the irony of coming full circle. And it took two minutes to type that. Sorry that fast typing strikes another nerve with your deep rooted inferiority complex. Still, no alt account, no answers and accusations. Yup, typical LeftWingNut . Dummy.

[Chucho]

What's his other handle detective?

1. The two notions are not mutally exclusive.

2. He's using words he doesn't firmly grasp to try and insult you.

Like I said, he isn't as smart as he thinks he is.

[Chucho]

Now head on back home and your mother some more, dimwit.

Says the guy who sides with the party who lets the American financial system be ran by inbred Eurotrash.

OOOOOOO, the irony.


Again, Fuzz, you aren't as smart as you think you are. Just stop it, ok. Go sit in your new, out of box, Ikea furniture and turn on some CNN and read some pro-Left threads on Facebook and come back and show us what new tricks you've trained on.

[TheSanityAnnex]

We've discussed this before. i need to just make a stock post and use that for when you come with this take.

1) How would you know what alt account is which if you were not complicit?
2) Either outcome to the above conditional results in it being pointless if not counterproductive to discuss what my takes are with you.

Now head on back home and your mother some more, dimwit.

I've been around here long enough to know which alts belong to which posters, most have slipped up and admitted it at some point or another and the rest are so obvious they don't even try and hide it. I've also been around here long enough to watch you constantly whiff on your claims of alts belonging to certain posters.

You just claimed you've figured out Chucho is someone's alt. So what's his other handle detective? I'd tell you to your mother some more as well but we all know she's dead.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL. Johnny CantDoForHimself with typical leftist denial and deflection. No answers, just ad-hominem attacks with little to no handle on the irony of coming full circle. And it took two minutes to type that. Sorry that fast typing strikes another nerve with your deep rooted inferiority complex. Still, no alt account, no answers and accusations. Yup, typical LeftWingNut . Dummy.

Whines of ad hominem coming from the guy who only claims I'm not as smart as I think I am. If you are going to make claims about improper use of words it helps to demonstrate how.

It's been noted you dropped the part about VPN's. Either you are not as savvy as you would have people believe or you are a deceptive turd. Does look like my inferiority comment found a home. You are a pervasive little aren't you?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And it should be noticed that our local dimwits of the conservative cabal have once again abandoned merit and the OP, premise and all.

[vy65]

The thing that struck me, was that the author of the op-ed in the OP, shockingly a right-wing think tank president, missed some interesting things in his ranting.

He appears to equate consumer interest group with "liberal", as if conservatives can't, or won't care about consumers.

Being pro-consumer =|= being pro the consumer groups listed in the article.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've been around here long enough to know which alts belong to which posters, most have slipped up and admitted it at some point or another and the rest are so obvious they don't even try and hide it. I've also been around here long enough to watch you constantly whiff on your claims of alts belonging to certain posters.

You just claimed you've figured out Chucho is someone's alt. So what's his other handle detective? I'd tell you to your mother some more as well but we all know she's dead.

Dimwit, we both know you have zero credibility and cannot be taken at your word. If you want to be believed then you need to demonstrate.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Dimwit, we both know you have zero credibility and cannot be taken at your word. If you want to be believed then you need to demonstrate.

Whether or not you believe me has no bearing on the claim you just made, and considering I'm not trying to get you to believe anything I honestly don't even get what the you are rambling about. Weak attempted deflection I guess?

You just claimed you've figured out Chucho is someone's alt. So what's his other handle detective?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Whether or not you believe me has no bearing on the claim you just made, and considering I'm not trying to get you to believe anything I honestly don't even get what the you are rambling about. Weak attempted deflection I guess?

You just claimed you've figured out Chucho is someone's alt. So what's his other handle detective?

We've discussed this before. i need to just make a stock post and use that for when you come with this take.

1) How would you know what alt account is which if you were not complicit?
2) Either outcome to the above conditional results in it being pointless if not counterproductive to discuss what my takes are with you.

Now head on back home and your mother some more, dimwit.

[TheSanityAnnex]

If you want to be believed you need to demonstrate. I can't say if you are right or wrong as to whether Chucho is someone's alt I just want you to share what you've claimed to have figured out. Stop being a little pussy and share your detective work.