Trump Administration moves to end legal marijuana.

wallaceps11n-1-web.jpg

Having known Governor Wallace personally for many years, I can tell you he was a staunch Conservative with a populist bent. There was not a liberal bone in his body. I disagreed with him on almost every political issue I ever heard him discuss.

Toward the end of his life he abandoned some of his racist views and came to believe in the equality of all humans, but that was not a position he held the vast majority of his life.
 
Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers
By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A25

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

The writer was governor of New York.
 
I'm not sure how this is going to play out. But, it looks like the Fed is removing the restrictions placed by Obama.

Trump is cleaning the slate. That throws the issue back into the laps of congress and State pols.

How do the state pols have a role in this? They are at the whims of the Feds.

If the goal is to have Congress do something shouldn't Trump be speaking to the public explaining what his position is? You read this and it sure seems Sessions is turning the hounds onto targeting MJ.
 
How do the state pols have a role in this? They are at the whims of the Feds.

If the goal is to have Congress do something shouldn't Trump be speaking to the public explaining what his position is? You read this and it sure seems Sessions is turning the hounds onto targeting MJ.

The direct affect of the Trump Administrations action here is to prevent legitimate businesses from being able to sell Marijuana, to severely interrupt business from engaging in the sale.

You cant take Credit Cards, or deposit money into a bank, or get insurance for your business under the new policy.
 
The direct affect of the Trump Administrations action here is to prevent legitimate businesses from being able to sell Marijuana, to severely interrupt business from engaging in the sale.

You cant take Credit Cards, or deposit money into a bank, or get insurance for your business under the new policy.

You couldn't do that under the old policy I thought?
 
How do the state pols have a role in this? They are at the whims of the Feds.

If the goal is to have Congress do something shouldn't Trump be speaking to the public explaining what his position is? You read this and it sure seems Sessions is turning the hounds onto targeting MJ.

You're right ... Congress has to do its job!

Repealing the directive starts the conversation. Trump is throwing it back to the people and their representatives ... and saying "you decide". IMHO
 
I don't even see this as a partisan issue, or a pro or anti Trump thing.

This is ALL about Sessions. I knew this was coming as soon as he was named AG.

This should concern ANYONE who values liberty, states rights & the will of the people.
 
If congress does its job ... you could be buying your weed on Amazon. :D
 
Sessions is a racist piece of shit.

How else is he going to be able to arrest 70 Black people for less than an ounce of weed?

This is about the private for profit, prison industry.

Most Black men are in prison for non violent pot charges.
 
You're right ... Congress has to do its job!

Repealing the directive starts the conversation. Trump is throwing it back to the people and their representatives ... and saying "you decide". IMHO

I'm not an MJ expert but I don't think that's what's happening here. Basically this is going back to full on War on Drugs days. Sessions has been quite clear on his position on MJ all along.

There are lots of laws on the book. We obviously choose to emphasize some more than others. This is saying we need to fully enforce our MJ laws and not let the states do as they please.
 
I'm not an MJ expert but I don't think that's what's happening here. Basically this is going back to full on War on Drugs days. Sessions has been quite clear on his position on MJ all along.

There are lots of laws on the book. We obviously choose to emphasize some more than others. This is saying we need to fully enforce our MJ laws and not let the states do as they please.

If it goes that way, it should cause enough outrage to get congress to change the law.
 

If it goes that way, it should cause enough outrage to get congress to change the law.

For me, I disagree that this is the best way to go about it.

I think it's bad policy and definitely bad politics as many people are looking at the Republican Party as dinosaurs on this issue which we are.
 
For me, I disagree that this is the best way to go about it.

I think it's bad policy and definitely bad politics as many people are looking at the Republican Party as dinosaurs on this issue which we are.

There really isn't any stopping legalization at this point. Polls overwhelmingly are in favor of it - and w/ the demographics, the %'s will only increase with time.

All Sessions is doing is setting back something that's inevitable. Unfortunately, people will suffer as a result.
 
For me, I disagree that this is the best way to go about it.

I think it's bad policy and definitely bad politics as many people are looking at the Republican Party as dinosaurs on this issue which we are.

The democrats controlled congress from 52 to 94 and never did a damn thing about it. Under Obama they had a huge majority in both houses ... and we got nada.

I think there was one bill in 2010? ... and it got like 10 democrat votes, IIRC.

The right way is rarely the easy way.
:D
 
The 13th Amendment of the Constitution has a clause which states that slavery is illegal, except for criminals.

This loophole is how lazy, greedy, racist, white men are able to continue slavery to this day.

They flooded the populous with the lie that all Black men are criminals.
 
The democrats controlled congress from 52 to 94 and never did a damn thing about it. Under Obama they had a huge majority in both houses ... and we got nada.

I think there was one bill in 2010? ... and it got like 10 democrat votes, IIRC.

The right way is rarely the easy way.
:D

It doesn't have to be difficult on this issue. The people have spoken.

I was very critical of Dems for their inaction. Part of the reason I didn't vote for Obama in '12, or for Hillary.

But this action by Sessions is reactionary. You don't have to defend everything this admin does. This one is just common sense.
 
Black prisoners exceeds the number of enslaved Blacks in the 1850s, an astonishing revelation that many Americans are largely unaware of.

Sessions wants to keep prison shareholders pockets fat.

If pot is legal, they have to find other ways to enslave Black men.
 
It doesn't have to be difficult on this issue. The people have spoken.

I was very critical of Dems for their inaction. Part of the reason I didn't vote for Obama in '12, or for Hillary.

But this action by Sessions is reactionary. You don't have to defend everything this admin does. This one is just common sense.

Sorry, but this is how you get Congress to do their jobs. They can fix the pending crisis in Cali and Colo ... if they want to. IMO
 
Back
Top