Fair Access to Financial Services (OCC-2020-0042-0001)

[LocalFireDept]

Fuck Philip Banks. Banks wants to empty the banks, fill our streets with banks, and run a bank making operation out of his banks.

Regards,
A concerned fire department

 

[MuuMuu Bunnylips]

Defense Distributed got torn apart by the banks. Pornhub also if you're a coomer and wear it proud.

Normie services that get big get hemmed back into place by payment networks instead of deleted. If you've used Patreon and someone you gave money to was removed, 100% chance Stripe (financial service, and relies on payment network rules) told Patreon to ice them.

This is what happens when you let the jews control the banks.

 

[I'm Not Racist Anymore]

 

[Suburban Bastard]

Nigger are you trying to kill him? Lmfao

 

[The Grinch]

Just submitted my comment, here's hoping to make a positive change in the world. Happy Birthday Josh.

 

[I'm Not Racist Anymore]

Nigger are you trying to kill him? Lmfao

Though I obviously don't speak for him, I believe in good faith that Josh would appreciate these digital birthday cards.

 

[Wodanaz]

Happy belated birthday, Josh. Thank you for the entertainment.

 

[Cats]

Alright, but I was led to believe you wanted something else for your birthday...

 

[teriyakiburns]

I can't comment, but I'm circulating this amongst some of my amerimutt friends.

 

[soy_king]

@Null, do the agencies actually take comments of laypersons in any way seriously during notice and comment? I feel like the submission of some random autismo is treated way less seriously than that of a medium to large business with some skin in the game who can actually provide detailed arguments or hire someone to write those arguments for them.

 

[Null]

@Null, do the agencies actually take comments of laypersons in any way seriously during notice and comment? I feel like the submission of some random autismo is treated way less seriously than that of a medium to large business with some skin in the game who can actually provide detailed arguments or hire someone to write those arguments for them.

Yes. Here's a clip from Current Year Man.

(Watch from timestamp until 6:26).

 

[Revo]

Sharing videos which features Minions, is very cringe/autistic.

 

[soy_king]

Yes. Here's a clip from Current Year Man.

(Watch from timestamp until 6:26).

There's a big difference between agencies and Congressmen, especially in terms of interaction with constituents. Members of Congress are still liable to lose their seats if they don't interact with their constituents, especially the ones clamoring for legislative action. The federal agencies, on the other hand, aren't dependent on voters for keeping their jobs, and don't necessarily need to go through notice and comment procedures for all their rulemaking. These comments are going to be considered by "experts in the field," not provincial jackasses who (usually) rely on a good reputation at home to stay in DC. I really don't know how useful submitting layperson comments without credible arguments would be.

 

[Null]

There's a big difference between agencies and Congressmen, especially in terms of interaction with constituents. Members of Congress are still liable to lose their seats if they don't interact with their constituents, especially the ones clamoring for legislative action. The federal agencies, on the other hand, aren't dependent on voters for keeping their jobs, and don't necessarily need to go through notice and comment procedures for all their rulemaking. These comments are going to be considered by "experts in the field," not provincial jackasses who (usually) rely on a good reputation at home to stay in DC. I really don't know how useful submitting layperson comments without credible arguments would be.

okay, then do nothing I guess. don't know why you're asking for my permission.

 

[soy_king]

okay, then do nothing I guess. don't know why you're asking for my permission.

I'm not, I'm asking a question because I'm not sure how notice and comment works in practice.

 

[Freedom Fries]

A part of me almost thinks it'd be better not to say shit and just pray it goes through by complete fucking accident than to submit any comment that'd make our regulators aware. I've severe doubts saying "hey please make the banks play fair so I can enjoy my politically incorrect gossip forum" or mentioning how the proposed regulation could benefit Gab, Bitchute, or anything that might compete with the tech oligarchs would help your case. The Federal government loves monopolies, want to keep them in place, and are perfectly fine squashing up-and-coming competition, especially these days.



They both are already married to each other in all the ways that actually matter. Only you have no say in any bit of it.

I've seen a lot of comments like this and I'm not gonna quote them all. Please don't sperg out about how your favorite Nazi site got shut down and that's so unfair.

Say you support it because it will improve liquidity and access to capital. Say the risks associated are already taken into account by the banks because the services will be offered and priced through a risk assessment. Say this is not burdensome because the Banks will make money off of properly risk adjusted products and services. Finally, say that this will improve access to the market for groups which have historically faced discrimination and groups who still do (this all has the advantage of being 100% true). Throw in something about technology disrupting traditional business and this rule being a necessary regulation as a result if you think you know enough about business to sound smart doing that.

The Dodd-Frank reforms had a real hard-on for the anti-discrimination bit so couch your argument from that angle, even if it's just 2 sentences.

Here's a template you can work from if you like:

It is my pleasure to endorse the Fair Access to Financial Services rule changes without reservation. In my opinion as an experiance goes here, the proposed changes address discrimination against marginalized individuals and groups of citizens in keeping with the spirit of the best aspects of Dodd-Frank. Furthermore, ensuring financial product and service access to individuals and business seeking it will improve liquidity and capital access and creation in our markets in a conservative, risk aware way. Since banks will be assessing risk on these clients and pricing their services and products accordingly, this rule change will not place an undue burden and should prove profitable for them. The proposed rule will improve both financial justice and the American market. Please pass the proposed rule change.

 

[Tree]

Banks should be entirely nationalized but saying that too loud gets you shot.

I like nationalism.

On top of this I recommend we ignore the civil rights act of 1964 in deciding who is in charge of these nationalized banks. It would help a lot with compliance issues.

 

[Freedom Fries]

Repealing that may be the single worst, shittiest thing Bill Clinton ever did, and that's even if he actually did rape Juanita Broaddrick.

Dodd-Frank enacted the Volker Rule which bars banks from engaging in proprietary trading, meaning agents or units of a bank cannot buy or sell securities, derivatives, commodity futures or options in the banks’ accounts unless it is absolutely necessary for the business of retail banking such as currency trading. I think this is a more reasonable and overall better rule personally.

 

[Sundae]

A day late and a dollar short, but Null I just want to say I hope you had a great birthday, and thank you for everything you've done for this site and the users here.

Also hope you have a Merry Christmas and a happy new year, and the same for the members here as well.

 

[hundredpercent]

I've seen a lot of comments like this and I'm not gonna quote them all. Please don't sperg out about how your favorite Nazi site got shut down and that's so unfair.

Say you support it because it will improve liquidity and access to capital. Say the risks associated are already taken into account by the banks because the services will be offered and priced through a risk assessment. Say this is not burdensome because the Banks will make money off of properly risk adjusted products and services. Finally, say that this will improve access to the market for groups which have historically faced discrimination and groups who still do (this all has the advantage of being 100% true). Throw in something about technology disrupting traditional business and this rule being a necessary regulation as a result if you think you know enough about business to sound smart doing that.

The Dodd-Frank reforms had a real hard-on for the anti-discrimination bit so couch your argument from that angle, even if it's just 2 sentences.

Here's a template you can work from if you like:

Please don't submit ten identical gibberish messages obviously cribbed from a template. Also, please bring up the rules for becoming a covered bank:
>The OCC invites public comment on whether the agency should include a percent of national market share threshold as another reason for a bank to be presumed to meet the definition of covered bank and, if so, whether a 10 percent, 20 percent, or other percent of the national market share would be the appropriate threshold.

>The OCC also invites public comment on whether a presumption different than the $100 billion asset threshold presumption proposed in § 55.1(a)(1)(ii) and (iii) would be more effective to capture banks that meet the definition of covered bank in § 55.1(a)(1)(i) and to exclude banks that do not meet these standards

I suppose I shouldn't just criticize, though, so here's some basic bullet points you can use, cribbed from the regulation and elsewhere. Please do not use all of these in one go.

• Banks have a legal responsibility to provide fair access to financial services.
• Banks should assess customers on a case by case basis.
• Instead, banks are often reacting pressure from advocates from across the political spectrum.
• Targets of this pressure:
  • family planning organizations / planned parenthood
  • private prisons
  • firearms
  • independent ATM operators
    • poor black people
    • rural communities
  • industrial farming and agriculture
  • coal
  • Energy in Alaska
  • PornHub
  • Defense Distributed
  • BitChute
  • New Project 2
• Small businesses are disproportionately hit; incumbents benefit
  • BitChute lost banking, YouTube is still there
  • New Project 2 lost banking, Patreon is still there
  • The reason you do not know about these businesses is because they lost banking
• It is the role of the government to deal with this, and not unaccountable banks.
  • If the government allows it, politics should not take the back door and deny them banking instead.
  • Organizations involved in politically controversial but lawful businesses are entitled to fair access to financial services under the law.
  • Neither the OCC nor the banks are well-equipped to estimate vague political/societal risks.
• Claims of reputational risk are used to justify arbitrary decisions
• Big banks are special, and should thus be neutral:
  • Only the largest banks have the diversified balance sheets and sophisticated risk management systems to serve certain industries
  • Taxpayers bail out the big banks
  • Big banks serve everyone anyway
  • If they cut you off, you're fucked
  • They are basically infrastructure
• Smaller banks may not have the expertise to serve these sectors
• However, some smaller banks may have a monopoly within certain segments (e.g. paypal)
• Operation Choke Point is a good example of what happens without this regulation. It was a travesty that must never be repeated.
• Banks will still be able to deny service based on compliance with laws and regulations and safety and soundness. The only thing this regulation prevents is the discretionary denial of banking.

If you submit a comment, please bring up the covered bank threshold.
> "The OCC invites public comment on whether the agency should include a percent of national market share threshold as another reason for a bank to be presumed to meet the definition of covered bank"

In plain English: "Right now, we think the main rule for whether you're covered by this should be if your assets are above $100 billion. However, we think it might also make sense to require banks with a certain percent of the national market to be covered. What do you guys think?"