The Obama-era Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under fire by the Trump administration has been a Democratic Party donor bank, its bureaucrats writing checks to liberals at a rate of 593 to one Republican. Overall, CFPB employees have donated $114,859.61 to various Democrats and Democratic committees. Of the 594 donor entries who listed the agency as their employer, one went to Mitt Romney, the losing 2012 Republican presidential nominee. It was for $1,000.
_______
The fight for control of the U.S. consumer watchdog agency intensified on Monday as Mick Mulvaney, President Donald Trump’s pick to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), imposed a hiring freeze and halted any new regulations.
So basically a bunch of liberal Democrats doing the work of the Democratic Party are now under the direct control of a Republican Trump appointee, who's obvious goal is to simply cut them all off at the knees...
A famous person once said... Elections have consequences.
Another famous person once said... Drain the swamp.
45 comments:
Unfortunately, that last famous person is part of the swamp.
WINNING !
As usual, James can't dispute Scott.
Democrats have been using the CFPB and their own personal protection racket.
It's a scam that would have impressed John Gotti (after he got his cut).
High time it ends.
Blogger Commonsense said...
Democrats have been using the CFPB and their own personal protection racket.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
yup. it's a $$$ laundering scheme.
assess a fine to a financial institution and pass the fine $$$ on to some liberal cause like planned slaughter-hood.
cha ching!
lather, rinse and repeat.
Oh sure, nothing at all wrong with Canadian payday loan lenders illegally and abusively strong-arming US consumers, claiming that US consumer laws don't apply. Just a semi-random recent case. Scamming people into credit card add-ons, signing customers up for banking "services" without their knowledge, that's just good capitalist business, right?
Man, you guys have been suckered. Literally nothing arising from eliminating the CFPB would serve your personal interest, not unless you own stock in some crooked bank or quasi-legal loan sharks.
" pass the fine $$$ on to some liberal cause"
Because any consumer financial service primarily benefiting low-income people, or opposing predatory financial practices, is automatically "some liberal cause".
Would you rather the crooks keep it? Collect the fines to bankroll a big tax break for the same crooks? That's it, isn't it, you think that anything goes when it involves a lot of money, and if they do get caught the fines should be shuttled back later on, as if no one would notice.
Man, you guys have been suckered. Literally nothing arising from eliminating the CFPB would serve your personal interest, not unless you own stock in some crooked bank or quasi-legal loan sharks.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
on the contrary, my issue has always been with how it was originally established. great pains were taken to ensure this "agency" operated with zero oversight. it is not congressionally funded, and it's chair does not serve at the pleasure of the president. and it's data collection techniques rival that of the NSA. i'll need your help in understanding why our financial information warrants that level of scrutiny.
fix those issues and place it under the purview of the justice dept, and i'd be inclined to support both it's existence and ongoing operation.
oh, and spare me the sob stories about payday lenders. that kind of bullshit is what i'd expect a fraudster like elizabeth warren to peddle.
Would you rather the crooks keep it?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
no, i'd rather it got deposited directly into the general fund of the federal treasury.
those who levy the fine have no business deciding how the fine $$$ get's spent.
Consumer confidence raced higher, EXPECTEDLY. Fly by the lost years.
You love every Big US Gov. Program.
This is another.
When the judge and jury is in charge of the hangings, hangings go up to collect the cash flow.
. i'll need your help in understanding why our financial information warrants that level of scrutiny.
The enormous political influence of financial institutions mandate that enforcement must be highly independent of Congress.
There is no other enforcement, not in practice. A little story about that. About 15 years ago (wow), when I first moved to Georgia, out of the blue I started to get hounded by a local fly-by-night lender for insurance, called "Eagle Premium" or some such. I'd purchased a car in Dallas, purchased a full year of insurance (paid in full, in advance), and these guys were claiming I owed them for financing and payments! To emphasize, I'd never heard of them and had no business at all with them, ever, but they partnered with the (practically fake) insurance company, specializing those types who buy 3 months of liability, or 1 month and finance, just to get tags on their beater and then drop it. Some salesman at the dealership might have faked the paperwork for his kickback, but I had the canceled check, receipts, agreements, proof of purchase etc from the dealer and insurance and they weren't part of any of it.
Well these guys pulled every trick in the book including physical threats, bottom-feeding lawyers and attempted forgery. This State was/is so permissive that they could get by with everything, with literally no consequence for years. No federal agency or department to turn to. Well, I told them not to try it with me locally, any of that, and nailed their Agent back in Texas. It all rolled back from there, and within a year that "business" had vanished so it ended well as far as I was concerned. The thing is, local and State law enforcement won't mess with it because (and I talked with both) as soon as they make a case for fraud or other violations, those businesses just evaporate leaving only some furniture behind, if that.
The point is, that's what comes of your idea that we already have the laws on the books, and we already have law enforcement that could handle it. What happens in reality is nothing is ever prosecuted, and financial crimes are tacitly allowed unhindered. The CFPB focused on the big business crimes, but it still acts as a brake on this low-level stuff because it's the only way that these criminals have some of their own skin in the game. It's not some high level of scrutiny so much as not promising to turn a blind eye any more. If you want to go back to that, no thanks.
oh, and spare me the sob stories about payday lenders. that kind of bullshit is what i'd expect a fraudster like elizabeth warren to peddle
Google "NDG Enterprise" and get back to me on that. 700% APR was among the least of the violations.
How does it help you, personally, to allow foreign crooks like that to get back to business in the US?
I don't take out any kind of loan. Haven't since 1998.
I've never taken a payday loan in my life, nor financed fly-by-night car insurance, but that's beside the point KD.
No it is the point, you believe your so smart, that you need this program abd hundreds of other to protect other.
Dave Ramsey call it paying stupid tax.
And the pain has to be real.
The enormous political influence of financial institutions mandate that enforcement must be highly independent of Congress.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
really.
so we should just allow a rogue politburo under the oversight of noone with a shred of fiscal or prosecutorial authority operate completely independently.
and this entity will be trusted to remain pure of heart and mind, and would never abuse its power under any circumstances.
oh, and it's funded by the federal reserve, who we all know is completely beyond reproach.
okey dokey. i mean, what could possibly go wrong?
WP...
How about Mulvaney cleans house, fires all management, replaces the entire bunch with a bunch of hard core conservatives, who then hire their own teams underneath them.
Would you still not have any issues with the fact that the agency gets to play judge, jury, and executioner... and there is no oversight from anyone other than Mulvaney?
CH, I wouldn't have any problems at all with that. Except for the "no oversight" red herring. The fact is, the SFBP has more oversight and constraints than any precedent banking regulator. https://consumerfed.org/pdfs/CFPB-Accountability-fact-sheet-6-11.pdf
But that's about the last thing that's likely to happen with Mulvaney. He has few qualifications for that position, and his executive experience is from a minority owner/operator of a restaurant (ie, less than mine even). The main qualification Mulvaney has as an Acting Director is that he despises the CFPB and would never be confirmed by the Senate in that position.
so we should just allow a rogue politburo under the oversight of noone with a shred of fiscal or prosecutorial authority operate completely independently.
Where do you get this stuff? Carly Fiorina? See above link for the facts.
WP...
Is the CFPB "not" considered an "independent agency" ?
wp, this:
The fact is, the SFBP has more oversight and constraints than any precedent banking regulator. https://consumerfed.org/pdfs/CFPB-Accountability-fact-sheet-6-11.pdf...
...has nothing to do with the cfpb other than a brief mention in their 'history' section:
.https://consumerfed.org/history/
Where do you get this stuff?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
it's not too hard to cobble together when one begins with dodd-fwank and elizabeth warren's involvement and follows from there.
in fact, a compelling argument can be made that the cfpb was created by sleight of hand to specifically avoid scrutiny and oversight.
this was the shadiest of shady deals from soup to nuts, wp.
i was born at night but not last night.
“Quietly, steadily, Trump and his administration are damaging the tenets and accepted practices of American democracy, perhaps irrevocably. As he and his family enrich themselves, the presidency itself falls into the hands of the generals and financiers who surround him.”
That's not exactly draining the swamp.
The Home Depot stock is having a outstanding year.
Only liberals can corrupt a reigning in of unconstitutional bureaucratic rule as an "attack on Democracy".
“Quietly, steadily, Trump and his administration are damaging the tenets and accepted practices of American democracy, perhaps irrevocably. As he and his family enrich themselves, the presidency itself falls into the hands of the generals and financiers who surround him.”
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
it took the complete and total asswipe david frum to say that.
i can see why you were embarrassed to provide the source, pederast.
Jane, are you going to hate as long as trump is in office?
James -
One person's accepted practices of American Democracy is another person's swamp.
Trump was hired to do away with many of the so called "accepted practices" that are the very reason our Government is ineffective an inefficient.
I hope this Obama POS goes to the USSC, it is unconstitutional.
Is the CFPB "not" considered an "independent agency" ?
What exactly do you mean by 'considered an "independent agency"'?
Considered by whom? The law, Congress, Fiona and Palin? The CFPB themselves? Is there a statutory definition of "independent agency" or is that just a label going around?
The intent of Congress was to establish a certain level of independence if that's what you're asking. The 5 year term, a couple of other things.
in fact, a compelling argument can be made that the cfpb was created by sleight of hand to specifically avoid scrutiny and oversight.
Please make that compelling argument then. I'm interested.
The home depot started this year at $129.68 , I have been recommending it for years.
Today it closed at $176.57.
This company is very well positioned.
The long night mare of madam Yell en is almost over. She will throw on more grenade, raising rates, AGAIN.
Her replacement is going thru his confer mating hearings, nothing to stop him.
#MAGA
Wasn't embarrassed to provide the source, just amused.
And did you, KD, hate as long as Obama was in office? (you know, that "black monkey," as you called him.
A wild card expected Wednesday could put the Senate GOP tax bill in jeopardy
The Washington Post--- Heather Long -- 39 mins ago
Senate Republicans are pushing an aggressive timeline to vote on a major overhaul of the U.S. tax code by Friday, but Congress's official tax scorekeeper is racing, too, and that could pose a problem for the GOP.
The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation plans to release a final estimate of the Senate bill's impact on the debt as early as Wednesday night. And when it does, the deficit hawks who hold the bill's fate in their hands will be watching closely.
“To me the big issue is how are we dealing with debt and deficit? Do we have realistic numbers?” Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said Monday. Lankford is one of at least four senators who have expressed major unease with how much the tax-cut bill will add to the nation's $20 trillion debt.
If the report shows a hefty addition to the debt, a few Republican senators might abandon the bill or demand major changes. Republicans can't afford to lose more than two GOP senators, an extremely thin margin.
Even without the tax bill, the United States' debt is expected to balloon to $31 trillion by 2027 as baby boomers age and the government pays out more for Social Security and Medicare.
The Joint Committee on Taxation, the nonpartisan analysts charged with estimating the costs of any tax bill, has already put out an initial report saying that the Senate GOP plan would add just over $1.4 trillion to the United States' debt by 2027, bringing the total debt to $32.4 trillion. But President Trump and many Republican leaders say that forecast is too high because it does not account for any growth from the tax bill. The analysis the JCT plans to release as early as Wednesday would be a “dynamic score” that factors in all the growth that's expected to come from businesses and families taking their tax savings and spending, saving or reinvesting the money.
The Trump administration contends there will be so much growth that the tax bill will pay for itself entirely, but hardly anyone else is willing to go that far. Nonpartisan economic groups say the tax bill is likely to generate modest economic growth that would pay for a third of the bill's total price tag, if that. The right-leaning Tax Foundation estimated the bill would end up adding about $1 trillion to the debt after accounting for growth. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says the “true cost” is likely to be over $2 trillion because the country is probably going to have to pay much higher interest in the coming years. (Basically, China and Japan won't lend the United States money at such cheap rates anymore.)
Republican leaders planned to vote without waiting for the JCT's dynamic score. That's what happened in the House when the JCT said it didn't have enough time to prepare a final estimate. But the JCT is rushing to get one done before the Senate vote.
“Our optimistic estimate for completion of this [dynamic] analysis is late Wednesday,” wrote Thomas Barthold, the JCT's director, in a letter to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
Almost everyone agrees the JCT won't show that the bill generates enough growth to fully pay for itself. The question is what the final JCT price tag will be — will it be closer to $1 trillion or $2 trillion?
...the article continues...
Secret donors are financing the lawsuit against President Donald Trump and White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney over who runs the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
Deepak Gupta, the lead lawyer of a boutique law firm that launched its suit on behalf of CFPB acting director Leandra English, confirmed in a CNBC interview that English is not paying for his hourly fees, but rather unknown anonymous donors are.
Gupta refused to name who is funding the lawsuit, making it difficult to ascertain the motives, intentions, or any special interests of those underwriting the case.
The D.C. lawyer appeared caught off guard when CNBC hosts asked who was financing his effort. He stumbled over his words in his first answer and said some form of unidentified “structure” was being put in place to accept funds from anonymous donors.
“Well, uh, it’s, it’s not, um, Miss, um English, um, ah. There are ethics lawyers that we’ve consulted, and we have a structure set up that is with ethics rules and, um, we’ll and we’ll be talking about that once we have that,” he told CNBC.
When repeatedly asked who is paying for the case, which could go all the way to the Supreme Court, Gupta answered, “It’s just not appropriate for me to be talking about that right now.”
CNBC’s host asked Gupta if his firm is handling the case pro bono. “No. We’re not,” Gupta replied.
Gupta previously worked for Ralph Nader’s litigation group, which historically has always demanded openness and transparency from government entities.
Nope,
See idiot how easy it is to answer a question.
Jane, go ahead, I showed you up again by directly answering your question.
So answer mine.
compelling but not complex, wp. the cfpb as it is currently structured, is ultimately accountable to nobody. even to my legally untrained mind, i wonder how this could possibly be legal.
the fact that there is even a debate over the president's authority to name a director strikes me as completely asinine.
and as to its funding, via the fed reserve but not congress? so if this thing becomes a monster we have no means by which to cut it's life support and shut it down? tell me THAT was intentional and yes, sleight of hand.
to the untrained eye the existence of the cfpb hangs by a constitutional thread. and whether you favor or oppose it's existence, one is not wrong to question its legality and constitutionality.
What exactly do you mean by 'considered an "independent agency"'?
CH, the DC Appeals Court makes a distinction in PHH vs CFPB, "executive" vs "independent" agency. Is that what you mean?
rrb, the Director has an unusual level of authority but that doesn't translate to the CFPB being accountable to nobody. They are accountable to courts for one thing, and accountable to other Federal Agencies in matters of enforcement and regulations.
Post a Comment