« BAF Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: the structure of the CFPB is unconstitutional 

By: Beldin in BAF | Recommend this post (3)
Tue, 28 Nov 17 11:03 PM | 70 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Bash-a-Farter
Msg. 00562 of 06530
(This msg. is a reply to 00560 by zzstar)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Congress cannot create a governmental agency that is unaccountable to Congress - to anyone. By doing so, the head of such an agency is an autocrat and that is the point at which the fraudulent abuses (politically motivated shakedowns of financial institutions by libtards in this case) start taking place. The CFPB was set up so the director could stay for life, if he chose to do so, and could be removed "only for cause." Heck, even the Chairman of the Fed is limited to a four-year term, nominated by the POTUS, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

As for your tired, worn out tripe about the tide of past mortgage defaults ... that was caused by Democrats using government to extort financial institutions into making loans to totally unqualified debtors (i.e., predominantly residents of Democrat plantations). These unqualified debtors were not victims of any predatory actions by the financial institutions ... they got off scot-free ... the U.S. taxpayers were the actual victims due to predatory actions taken by Democrats to feather their own nests. For example:

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), who steered $12 million in federal bailout funds (TARP) to a failing Massachusetts bank (OneUnited Bank) ... that subsequently got shut down by the government ... in which she and her board member husband held shares.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who also got in on the act of failing OneUnited Bank by intervening with then Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson. And, during a hearing on September 10, 2003, before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and Freddie, Rep. Frank stated: "I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis ... I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury." Frank received $42,350 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 1989 and 2008.

Ah, zzshart ... you're such a willing dupe of your libtard betters. Laughing




Avatar

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. ~ D.H. Lawrence




» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
The CFPB EXPLAINED ....FOR MORONS....
By: zzstar
in BAF
Tue, 28 Nov 17 8:14 AM
Msg. 00560 of 06530

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—which was brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren—was created in the wake of the financial crisis by the Dodd-Frank Act, the legislation meant to reform the financial sector and protect the public from predatory and dangerous practices. Title X, the section of the Act which calls for Bureau’s formation, states that a director will be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Bureau then has the ability to “administer, enforce, and otherwise implement federal consumer financial laws, which includes the power to make rules, issue orders, and issue guidance.” But in those endeavors, the Bureau and its director are not directly subject to oversight from any of the branches of government. The autonomy of the CFPB is, in some ways, singular. But in others, the setup of the CFPB is similar to that of the Federal Reserve. The Fed’s goals and purpose—to establish maximum employment and stable prices—are set by Congress, but its funding and operation remain autonomous in order to prevent being swayed by political pressure.

The thinking behind the CFPB’s structure was similar. The Bureau receives its money not through congressional appropriation but from the Fed. And in its inception, the agency was given a long, independent leash purposely so that it could proceed with its work without worrying too much about political retribution.

Now, let me explain to y’all:

If you don’t like the idea of consumer protection, or the Federal Reserve, take it to tne SCOTUS. FK legislating judges. That’s why the SCOTUS is there.

And guess what: Nothing’s happend since then, because nothing CAN happen. Or, it would have.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/court-rules-consumer-financial-protection-bureaus-structure-is-unconstitutional/503660/

Besides, I don’t know what’s wrong with an agency that stops banks from doing the stuff with mortgages that led to 2008....

Perhaps one of you brains can explain why you fight against fraudulent abuses.

I will step out there and say that I don’t expect an answer, because such an answer can’t exist, as a thinking human would not attempt it.


« BAF Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next