Posted on Jun 7, 2017
DOJ ends Holder-era ‘slush fund’ payouts to outside groups
1.18K
5
14
3
3
0
DOJ
Politics
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
So...Let me get this straight. A non-profit helps thousands of people who are being improperly foreclosed on by a bank that is violating the law by doing so. The DOJ takes the bank to court, gets a huge settlement for the wronged homeowners, and the group that spent their own money helping the homeowners is paid some money from the settlement to compensate them for their time. Is that about right? How is that a bad thing? How did it become a 'slush-fund' if there was no single account the money came from? How is this corruption? How do you people sleep at night?
(0)
(0)
Sgt Wayne Wood
The redlining was neighborhoods that were bad investments. Threatening a financial institution with audits or other politically-motivated scrutiny is coercion.
(0)
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
Sgt Wayne Wood - You simply have no idea what you are talking about. Redlining is always racial in nature. It had nothing to do with being a 'bad investment' or not. People in certain neighborhoods were denied mortgages, even if they could afford it. Or they would be approved only if they were buying in a certain neighborhood. Threatening a bank, or other financial institution with audits or other scrutiny to enforce the law is the right thing to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
In the United States, redlining is the practice of denying services, either directly or through selectively raising prices, to residents of certain areas based on the racial or ethnic composition of those areas. While the best known examples of redlining have involved denial of financial services such as banking or insurance,[2] other services such as health care[3] or even supermarkets[4] have been denied to residents (or in the case of...
(0)
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
Sgt Wayne Wood - Whatever. Don't believe you. But, whatever helps you sleep at night. Just like a conservative to resort to personal attacks in the face of overwhelming evidence they can't refute.
You are dismissed, Private.
You are dismissed, Private.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google