Or how about this:
Me: I want to borrow some money.
Bank: We like to loan money! Wait, did you pay us as promised last time?
Me: No, but I PROMISE I will this time.
Bank: Ok, Sure! Here's some money!
How likely is that scenario?
I can definitely admit this was a little bit of tangent, I think my point was that there may be other contending issues as to why banks sometimes seem to jerk around their credit customers and that we are not aware of the reasons immediately. I being a Democrat have nothing against Obama, because I am a democrat, but it was one of his policy of which I made mention of on the OP. I also will say that this post may have been fired off while enjoying a Bakers on the rocks. Anyways, I guess I just wanted to get a reaction to this OP.
As other's have pointed out, it's not Obama which established this. Banks have traditionally been collusive, in the sense that if you mess up with one of them, every other bank takes it "personally" too (to be specific, they're going to take their pound of flesh with the way FICO, risk analysis, and underwriting work).
There's really nothing new to this; while banks have some responsibility to the customer, they also have some to their shareholders. Sometimes we may never fully know why an account had adverse action taken on it; however, while the vast majority of this specific board is geared towards establishing credit, there's useful information to be found on using it wisely as well... and thereby lessen the chance of one of the banks internal systems flagging your account for review. Needle in a haystack principles apply.
My apologies, that was a tangent too.