HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Quietly Killing a Consume...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:44 AM

Quietly Killing a Consumer Watchdog

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/opinion/quietly-killing-a-consumer-watchdog.html?_r=0


If you’d like to know why Republicans are trying to shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, take a look at three things the agency has already accomplished in its first 18 months:

¶It called a halt to predatory practices by mortgage lenders, ensuring that borrowers are not saddled with loans they can’t afford and preventing brokers from earning higher commissions for higher interest rates.

¶It won an $85 million settlement from American Express, which it accused of deceptive and discriminatory marketing and billing practices.


...

The bureau cannot operate without a director. Under the Dodd-Frank law, most of its regulatory powers — particularly its authority over nonbanks like finance companies, debt collectors, payday lenders and credit agencies — can be exercised only by a director. Knowing that, Republicans used a filibuster to prevent President Obama’s nominee for director, Richard Cordray, from reaching a vote in 2011. Mr. Obama then gave Mr. Cordray a recess appointment, but a federal appeals court recently ruled in another case that the Senate was not in recess at that time because Republicans had arranged for sham sessions.

26 replies, 4255 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 26 replies Author Time Post
Reply Quietly Killing a Consumer Watchdog (Original post)
Scuba Feb 2013 OP
xchrom Feb 2013 #1
a kennedy Feb 2013 #2
Dalai_1 Feb 2013 #3
Ed Suspicious Feb 2013 #4
theaocp Feb 2013 #5
siligut Feb 2013 #9
caseymoz Feb 2013 #13
awoke_in_2003 Feb 2013 #22
Plucketeer Feb 2013 #23
caseymoz Feb 2013 #25
AAO Feb 2013 #6
Jackpine Radical Feb 2013 #7
CanSocDem Feb 2013 #10
Jackpine Radical Feb 2013 #15
AAO Feb 2013 #19
Jackpine Radical Feb 2013 #20
unapatriciated Feb 2013 #8
caseymoz Feb 2013 #11
myrna minx Feb 2013 #12
Highway61 Feb 2013 #14
antigop Feb 2013 #16
rgbecker Feb 2013 #17
antigop Feb 2013 #18
Iwillnevergiveup Feb 2013 #26
jonthebru Feb 2013 #21
upi402 Feb 2013 #24

Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:47 AM

1. du rec. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:06 AM

2. kicking this......eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:13 AM

3. Kick & R n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:10 AM

4. Talk about perverse incentives.

"...preventing brokers from earning higher commissions for higher interest rates."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:25 AM

5. And again I wonder why anyone supports

Harry fucking Reid. This blood is on HIS hands b/c he had the chance to do something about it and decided instead to dance with the turtle. His actions speak fucking VOLUMES. Fuck that noise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theaocp (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:10 AM

9. Keeping nefarious activities legal

That seems to be the underlying theme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theaocp (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:26 AM

13. I'm wondering if a deal was cut.

I notice that Repubs in Virginia were going ahead with plans to change the electoral vote distribution in the state. They showed they could do it, and there wasn't anything the dems could do to stop it. Within a day after filibuster reform was turned back, the Republican governor said he did not support the redistribution effort. I haven't heard much about it elsewhere since.

It might not be the deal, but it did make me wonder. The Dems seemed to have everything in place to eliminate the filibuster. Reid put his name behind it, and really had egg on his face.

Perhaps keeping the filibuster was the lesser of two evils? Filibuster, or any chance of a Democratic president in 2016?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:09 PM

22. There was no deal...

the further and further we go, the more evident it is that we have one party going by two different names. Oh sure, both have certain issues they keep alive (but never do anything about) as red meat for their followers. With maybe the exception of a handful of people, congress is a cesspool populated by people good at making speeches and nothing more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #22)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:51 PM

23. Spot on!

With the exception of a tiny few, the reps from either side are shills for special interests before they ever even SEE what their office in DC looks like. Bought, paid and tied up with a ribbon. And we stew about how nothing gets done!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #22)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:26 PM

25. If I agree with everything but your title


. . . tell me how do you know there was no deal? I'm looking for news that Electoral reform is going through in any of the states reported to be considering it, Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and I'm not finding much since filibuster reform was turned back. That's not proof, but that's an indication that it's worth a look.

If the Democrats and the Republicans are one party, doesn't that mean they're different factions of the same party, then, competing for money if nothing else? If you look at who donates to whom there are a few differences. It doesn't make sense for labor unions and the entertainment industry to donate to Democrats and not Republicans unless the Democratic wing of the "Unity" party you talk about is a little more sympathetic. Same with the US Chamber of Commerce or the Koch Brothers and Republicans.

BTW, if they are really one party, that would be more in line with what the Founders envisioned for the US: a state without faction, a one party state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:26 AM

6. If they are shame sessions, then they aren't sessions at all.

 

I wish these federal judges would quit babysitting the republicans and be more concerned for "We the people" of this nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:05 AM

7. "Shame sessions"--Indeed.

There is often hidden truth in our typos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:16 AM

10. Freudian slips...??? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanSocDem (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:36 AM

15. Yes. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 11:28 AM

19. Freudian Typo to be sure!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 11:48 AM

20. A slip of the fingers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:07 AM

8. K&R n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:19 AM

11. R&K

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:23 AM

12. K&R n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:33 AM

14. K & R nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:38 AM

16. also, on "60 Minutes", the segment on credit reporting agencies...CFPB would have regulatory power

over the credit reporting agencies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #16)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:45 AM

17. I saw that and immediately thought of Elizabeth Warren.

Interesting that the possible creditor gets a completely different report than the one you see when you check your status with these reporting companies.

I think there is a market for someone to pose as a creditor, get a "real" report for those who really what to know what is being provided to their banks etc. That the lady had to peek at her report while the banker was out of the office to find out she was getting someone else's info on her report is at total outrage. Different names for Christ's sake!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:47 AM

18. I thought of her, too. Look what she accomplished before she became a senator! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 02:10 AM

26. Yes, saw that, too

and wondered if the file was intentionally left for the lady to see.
We could use a few good rogue bankers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:18 PM

21. Lets hear it for Harry Reid!!!

Hip, hip, Hooray!!!
Haarry! Haarry! Haarry!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:09 PM

24. jesus

the rabbit hole winds down down down

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread