Help now is on the way if you think your payday loan is too expensive, if your school lender is ripping you off, if your mortgage is at risk of cancellation or if a debt collector is giving you a hard time. Just go to www.consumerfinance.gov or call 855-411-CFPB (2372) and ask for assistance from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
President Obama enabled the bureau to police these nonbank businesses by making a recess appointment of Richard Cordray as director. By law, the bureau had to wait to act until it had a director. Mr. Cordray already was regulating banking institutions as chief of enforcement at the agency while awaiting Senate action on his confirmation as director. Senate Republicans were holding it up as a lever to force structural changes in the bureau, which the White House said would weaken it and Republicans said would add accountability.
Mr. Cordray started off regulation of nonbanks with a blog post inviting consumers to call him “Rich” and “tell us your stories today.” He said, “Consumers need to have someone who will stand on their side, who will protect them against fraud and who will ensure that they are treated fairly.”
This unabashed advocacy for consumers has been lacking in modern government. As the economy, telecommunications and other parts of 21st century life become increasingly complex, it is a proper role of government intervene on behalf of average residents.
The new agency’s supervision of large banks, thrifts and credit unions began in July. Nonbank supervision, which commenced Jan. 5, is starting with the overseeing of payday lenders, private education lenders and mortgage companies, including originators, brokers, servicers, loan-modification services and foreclosure-relief services, regardless of their size. The bureau will supervise only the larger businesses in other markets — debt collection, consumer reporting, auto financing and money services.
Mr. Cordray said, “Since most of these businesses are not used to any federal oversight, our new supervision program may be a challenge for them. But we must establish clear standards of conduct so that all financial providers play by the rules.”
The recess appointment, made while Congress was away for the holidays, was akin to actions taken hundreds of times by former presidents of both parties. As in recent years, Congress has been holding unattended “pro-forma” sessions during recesses, trying to prevent recess appointments. Republicans are outraged, but Lawrence H. Tribe, a Harvard law professor, wrote that the appointment was constitutional and that the administration could win any lawsuit to contest it in a “slam-dunk” victory.
With this action behind him, Mr. Obama may make additional recess appointments in February during an expected Presidents Day holiday recess if Senate Republicans continue to hold up scores of other pending nominations.
Senate Republicans had unanimously pledged not to confirm Mr. Cordray until the bureau’s structure was changed. They wanted it headed by a bipartisan board like some other federal agencies. But this bureau’s charter goes beyond regulation and makes it a protector of ordinary residents in a financial system with many abuses and little recourse. Critics also wanted congressional control of its financing, instead of letting the Federal Reserve fund it. But the White House so far is preventing the Republicans from starving its funding.
Fortunately, Mr. Obama has defied the critics and gone ahead to install Mr. Cordray as director of a much-needed consumer protection agency.
I’m glad he was appointed. The law to create the bureau went through all the necessary hurdles and checks & balances. Blocking any appointment just because? You should have blocked the law then if you didn’t want the bureau to function.
The czar and his power will be evident one day; then I wonder how many will say it was a great non-recess, illegal appointment!
how many czars does Obama need?
OK.
I’ll bite.
How many czars DOES Obama need?
Sorry, I lost count; he keeps adding more, and more, and more..
hmmm, just doing a 10 second research I see where bush appointed 49 czars- 7 more than obama
how can that be? i guess bush was a socialist
Don’t forget that many of Obama’s are carry-overs from the Bush administration as well.
Who?
Afghanistan czar, AIDS czar, Drug czar, Faith-based czar, Intelligence czar, Mideast Peace Czar, Regulatory Czar, Science Czar, Sudan Czar, TARP/Bailout Czar, Terrorism Czar, and Weapons Czar.
I do not think anyone knows the real count for any of them, like I said some say 47 for Obama now 48 and he is not done yet. Hmm does that make Obama a communist or yet a Muslin?
If you look under the “Number of czar titles” column, which is I presume the subject, it shows George W. Bush appointed 33 czars in 8 years, Obama’s on #38 in just under 3 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars
Is he the first President to have them?
I belive he is the first one to have so many. As of Sept. 38 (some say 47) this does not include those he has just appt. and is appointing during the recess.
First of all, you’re just parroting the fringe right-wing media. There is no such thing as “czars”, that’s just short-hand for political advisers. All Presidents have them because they can’t be experts on everything. Many of Obama’s “czars” are carry-overs from the previous administration — he has appointed few new ones. Second, this bureau isn’t set up to advise the President. This appointment is to allow the law that was already passed to function.
Come up with some real and relevant criticisms next time.
In reply, both sides call them czars, and I did not say other presidents have not had them. I said as far as I see he has more than other have had, and at a higher price tag. By the way, George Bush had 33. The appt. was sidelined because a lot of aspects needed to be clearified. It can funtion propley if they do not know what they are doing.. It is relevant that he has appointed more. I thought he did nto want more Government?
(Just an aside to let you know what you’re dealing with, a lot of these folks think the real czars were communists.)
Really? Conservatives believe the Czars were communists???????? Nobody is that stupid. Nobody slept through history class when Tzar Alexander and his family were getting killed.
No, not all Conservatives. Just a few of our friendly tr0lls.
Judging by the lack of oversight that Bush left behind, I would say at least a few more.
This “czar” is charged with protecting consumers from unscrupulous banking and lending practices. Had this been in place a few years ago we might have avoided the depths of collapse that we ended up with.
If you are listening to people telling you we need less oversight and regulation, you are being sold poison. Unless you really don’t care about the middle class at all, you are a fool to think we need less regulation. We are in the economic straits we are in because of the lack of regulation. It will get worse is we allow more deregulation.
How many agencies or czars do we need? I do not care if it is Democrat or Bush. I sure there are enough Federal Gov. employees to oversee this. Lack of oversight, yea like the person who signed NAFTA.
Clinton did plenty wrong. There are NOT enough regulators where they are needed. WE need them watching the banks to prevent them from gambling and then needing the treasury to fix them up after they bust.
And the march to socilaisim continues………..
Please inform us of how protecting the consumer from getting ripped off is socialism. Or are you an advocate for thieves?
I’m an advocate for personal responsibility.
Most of these “poor, misled consumers” should know better than to sign on with these shysters, or with Obama.
{I’m an advocate for personal responsibility}
So how do you measure it without rules?
There are no Bankers in Prison for the Meltdown of our economy because they didn’t break any rules !
They didn’t do anything wrong, just ask THEM!
He can’t answer you, there isn’t a relevant piece from the Heritage Foundation or a Glenn Beck blog to copy/paste from.
So, you’re arguing people should go to prison if you don’t like their actions, even if they’re not against the law? Sounds fair to me.
Typical liberal argument.
They need to go back to living in a tent and whining about how everybody’s trying to screw them out of what is RIGHTFULLY theirs;
YOUR MONEY.
No! Thats not what I said,
What I was saying is that abscent rules there is no foundation for {Personal Responsibility}
Using your brand of logic, the recipients of the loans didn’t do anything wrong or break any rules when the knew full well that there was no way to pay those loans back.
I agree with the rule breaking you are talking about but how does that have anything to do with foreclosures??
FREDDIE & FANNIE MAE were designed by Barney Franks and Chuckie Schumer to ‘protect’ us against unscrupulous mortgage banking practices that denied people mortgages.
Look how well that turned out…o..k. it crashed the world economy, surely Obummer wouldn’t do it again?
You didn’t answer the question. How is protecting consumers socialism?
Socialism is that fun word for evil that radicals throw out when they get confused,
Have you noticed some use it alot?
It is not governments job to protect consumers. Let the buyer beware. Let consumers band together, it doesn’t require BIG government.
Exactly!
You act like you think that is sinister.
We did band together. We got together and asked for a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. You keep forgetting that the government is us. We voted for it. We sent legislator to represent us. The government is not some foreign occupying power. We are the government.
Who is we and why is it a government taxpayer funded program? Next time you think the government is us go have a conversation with the IRS. We are the government; how juvenile.
Having had several civil conversations with the IRS I find they are not unreasonable people. They make mistakes, they fix them. You make mistakes, they make you fix them. How is this sinister or juvenile?
Fannie is over 70 years old. Are you trying to tell us that both Frank and Schumer were in congress that long?
So Bankers found new unscroupulous practices called derivatives to Hide the Bad loans!
There’s an old saying that goes
” there’s a sucker born every minute”
And there’s another that says
“And two to take them”
The rules are there.
Your heroes chose to not enforce them and then along comes Fwanck/Dood to help reinforce the problems by telling Fannie/Freddie to loan to everyone, even if they can’t pay it back.
Did you REALLY expect that those chickens wouldn’t come home to roost, eventually?
untrue about subprime loans and the payback for the lower end of the loans was several times better than the larger loans
get a clue and do some research instead of just parroting conservative talking points.
you would want a cop to respond if someone stole something from you but you want to give white collar theives a pass
better look up socialism, and then look up plutocracy
noparkforme is just like EJ Parsons. Ask them for facts to backup their statements and they can’t.
Sorry.
I had to occupy my job.
144,000,000 million needy Americans are depending on me for support.
So to be clear, you don’t have facts to backup your claims. You can try and derail all you want, but it’s pretty obvious what you’re doing.
Hey Rube,
Do you have any stats?
Thanks
I can make up a statistics that will show you just about anyting I want you to think.
Here is a stat for you.
The average person has one breast and one testicle. See how statistics don’t necessarily mean anything.
LOL Thanks for the fun statistic of the day.
Sad thing is that a majority of liberal posters will believe you, and ask for you to run in the next election.
So tell me what was incorrect about my statistic?
As usual, you’re only half right.
As usual, you cannot answer a direct question
As usual, you’re only half right.
They are hardly new. What is relatively new if the level of oversight and regulation. Since Clinton, the regulation over these transactions has diminished. Bush replaced the oversight with financial industry insiders. What we need to fix the system is strong regulation. Dodd-Frank is only a start for the big changes that are needed.
There is another storm brewing and another round of bailouts will be required when the banks fail the next time. I believe that will be in the next 12 – 24 months.
The anti-regulation crowd is either profiting directly from unscrupulous banking practices or they are ignorant of what it all really means. I think the majority who comment on these forums are simply ignorant about regulation and cannot see how much consumers have suffered from the lack of oversight and regulation.
Derivatives are the reason that we see wildly fluctuating prices on gasoline, coffee, heating oil, and many other items we consume. By some estimates 20% of the price we pay for these items goes into the pockets of Wall Streeters. Think about that, 20% of all the money we spend on gas and agricultural goods is taken by these people who produce nothing tangible whatsoever.
“these people who produce nothing tangible whatsoever. ”
Somwewhat similar to most of the liberal posters on here.
Now that’s a really intelligent comment.
That is what we call ad hominem attack. You have no point to make.
Anyone who tells you the CFPB lacks oversight or will increase prices is playing you for a fool.
Who’s this “we”?
You got a turd in your pocket?
And the increase in Gas prices in 2007 actually caused the 2008 banking crisis as consumers began to default on their mortgages due to the resulting inflation.
That is absolute nonsense. The mortgages that busted were never, ever on track for timely repayment. The loans were sour the day they were inked. Someone is feeding you some misleading info.
simply untrue – of the top 25 subprime lenders ONLY ONE was subject to the regulations conservatives blame Frank for. it was UNREGULATED institutions
If they are with the GOP then yes, they are an advocate for thieves. Free market, no matter the consequences. Meanwhile when these victims have been exploited into desperate economic duress these champions of the free market will say no social services for the poor. Essentially condemning them to die on the streets.
Condemning them to die on the streets…..LMFAO
After they kill their puppies and kittens.
Well how are they getting ripped off, because the bank is foreclosing on them for non payment or just because the bank is ripping them off which is illegal as you know?
Don’t worry Der OberBama has your backs. Now get in line like good socialists and applaud the wisdom of the great leader.
Calling the president a nickname based on a crazy fascist dictaor and then telling socialists to follow him. Mix up your political philosophies much.
But I guess when you just parrot Rush and his ilk, you’ll do that alot.
Define socialism. I’m betting you haven’t the faintest idea what it really is.
It’s legislative control of private property, rather than outright seizure, for the purpose of wealth redistribution to favored groups.
It’s communism with training wheels.
And how is this being evidenced in the United States?
The EPA routinely does this, as one example.
Now they don’t. They enforce laws made by the legislature.
Yeah, they do. They promulgate agency regulations that have the force of law.
Not with out legislative support.
Oh BTW socialism can be defined as an economic and social theory in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. It is usually characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels.
The EPA is under the full authority of the Executive Branch.
More rightwing hyperbolic nonsense entirely rooted in your unending cowtowing to the corporate masters who own you people lock stock and barrel. Go ahead. Have all your GOPer candidates run this year on a pledge to destroy the consumer protection agency. Your corporate-worshipping GOPers won’t be able to win an election for dog catcher. Boy, you people really know how to be on the wrong side of every conceivable issue, especially those positions that actually are in the interest of the vast majority of Americans and not just your corporate silver-spooned masters.
Nopark: your definition of socialism is consumer protection and that’s bad? Don’t tell me you are for corporate fraud and consumer being ripped off?
What is illegal about the appointment? Lets see facts or is this something Rush, Hannity, Beck, or Ric Tyler made up.
And I am sure you are one of those that complained about Bush’s recess appts. Another appointment, Obama has more in Czars and people then any before him, spend, spend, spend.
You missed that Obama has been cutting deficits left him by the previous admin. The record shows Obama has been a deficit hawk.
Go ahead, ignore the objective realities and keep on believing that the GOP is fiscally responsible and the dems just spend. The record on this is undeniably favorable for democrats and very poor for republicans.
You will see that by the end of his second term, Obama will have presided over the greatest deficit reduction policy in our history. You try to paint the same old picture with the same broad brush but the truth is that it is always just talk for republicans.
Cutting the deficit he is creating,now that is a farce.
Obama is cutting the deficit that Bush created when he granted tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy as well as starting not one but two unnecessary wars. The democrats under Clinton were, I believe for the first time since FDR, actually running budgets in the green. Bush took office, the GOP had its way, and whamo, back into the red and an economic recession! Good grief you right wing extremist’s are so short on memory.
So, you are telling me that the deficit has not tripled since he has been in office. It was also the democrats who put S.S. in the budget making a mess out of that. The only deficit Obama is cutting is the one he created and is creating.
In the last year Obama has cut the deficit by more than any president has ever cut the deficit. Don’t believe me. See for yourself. Visit the department of the treasury website. The deficit in the first year was required to stabilize the economy after your guy screwed it up beyond compare.
Are you allergic to facts or do you choose to know nothing about what you are posting?
This country is failing because the electorate, much like yourself, are uninformed and are being lied to by corporate sponsored media. I do not trust without verification. After reviewing the facts, it is obvious that republicans have presided over nearly every bust we have had and have been responsible for almost all of our deficits. “Conservatives” are just lying windbags who do not EVER practice what they preach.
Here is a quick rundown on deficits from our treasury:
Obama: -$329B
Bush 2nd term: +805B
Bush 1st Term: +397B
Clinton: -164B
GHW Bush: +38B
Reagan: +106B
Carter: -4B
Ford: +69B
Nixon: +17B
johnson: -2B.
So there you have it. Every single republican president since Eisenhower have increased the deficit and every single democratic president has reduced it. None have decreased the deficit by more than Obama and he hasn’t had a strong economy to benefit from either.
Everything you think you know about republicans is wrong.
Way wrong.
Watch this…..
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
green is good, red is bad
asset/liability
When Bush left office in 2008 that national debt was $10.7 trillion.
Today the national debt is $15.2 trillion
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
We also have $117 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
“The record shows Obama has been a deficit hawk.”
That is, hands down, the funniest post I’ve ever read in this Comments section.
Kudos to you.
That just goes to show you do not have a grasp on the facts. You should visit the treasury website and see the deficit and spending numbers and stop embarrassing yourself by asserting your ignorance.
During the last year, the deficit has been cut by more than in any single year in our history. The last four presidents with balanced budgets were all democrats.
You guys have the rhetoric but absolutely no substance.
Funny, enoughnow. I remember after the election but before the admin was seated I posted about ALEC and their influence over the new crew. You replied it was the most ridiculous post you had ever read. Now everyone knows who ALEC is and what the LePage record is. Not so ridiculous is it?
How do you know this? Have I ever posted a comments against a Bush recess appointment. It’s always the same with hypocrites like you. My party can do make recess appointments but you party cannot because it’s illegal. Time to man up Bruce.
I am wondering what the Fedreal Deficit is at now. Has it increased in the last 2-3 years? I do not think any party should make recess appt.s unless it is an emergency.
This was an appointment to a lawful posistion that the Republican’s were on record as saying they would never allow an appointment to the position, ever. Why? Because Republicans are not for the average Joe but will always do what is rigth for the richest people in the country.
In following the article, my understanding was because the position was not fully clear on his total responsibilities.
Complaining about something doesn’t make it illegal
I do not ever recall saying it or was illegal. I believe their is enough people in Washington to handles these matters. It doesn’t matter the party. We do not need to spend 100’s of thousands of dollars with more people.
Yeah, Harry Reid thought it was legal when he led identical blocks of Bush Appointments. Now the shoe is on the other foot and it’s illegal???
Partisan politics sucks!
It doesn’t matter what’s legal or illegal. The truth doesn’t matter. Whatever Obama does is bad. That’s the end of the story for these people.
Wow.
You are starting to see through Him too, no?
The Senate wasn’t in recess when the appointment was made; therefore, it is unconstitutional.
More regulations, more freedoms lost.
Yeah, I hate the one where they tell you that you cant drive intoxicated!
or wear a seat blet
or especially when they tell you, you can’t discriminate
Or sell snake oil
Too bad it comes at the cost of shredding the constitutional system of checks and balances. Now the President decides when Congress is in session or recess? Priceless. What till the liberals scream when someone other than their ideological bent does this.
Oh, Congress wasn’t in recess? What business are they conducting right now? How many Senators are in DC right now?
No, Congress was not in recess.
“Art. I, Sec. 5 of the Constitution provides that ‘(n)either House…shall…adjourn for more than three days’ without the consent of the other. The House of Representatives has not consented to a Senate recess. Thus, the Senate is not in recess and the president’s purported recess appointments were unconstitutional and unprecedented.
On December 17, the Senate began a ‘pro forma’ session, which allows the Senate to conduct its business mostly by agents under unanimous consent procedures. Regardless of the prudence of these ‘pro forma’ sessions, the president is well aware that the Senate remained in session. In fact, on December 23, President Obama signed a bill–the payroll tax cut extension–into law that the Senate passed earlier that day.”
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-the-cordray-appointment-constitutional/the-president-abused-his-power
LOL, so now you’re the one that knows best about the Constitution and case law regarding this? It’s cute that you think citing a “legal expert” for the Heritage Foundation is going to gain you credibility on here.
I find it funny you have issue with the President using his Constitutional powers, but think it is perfectly fine for the minority party in the Senate to overreach and stunt the President. They’re not actually conducting business. There are only a handful of Senators there, playing a game to block the President from using his rights. But Obama is the one overreaching? What a joke.
The Bush administration argued successfully that these “pro forma” sessions did not prevent the President from exercising the provisions of Article II, Section 2(3) of the Constitution. There is a reason why this nomination is not going to be challenged — because there is no case.
“The Bush administration argued successfully that these “pro forma” sessions did not prevent the President from exercising the provisions of Article II, Section 2(3) of the Constitution. ”
Cite a specific example of recess appointments President Bush made when Congress in pro-forma session, and then maybe we can have a productive conversation. Of course, it would be wrong if any President did it.
You are aware that between Thanksgiving 2007 and January 2009, when he left office, President Bush did not make recess appointments because Harry Reed used pro-forma sessions to prevent him from doing so. In other words, President Bush did not do an end run around the Constitution like your hero Obama did.
Senate Judiciary Committee:
It was evidently intended by the framers of the Constitution that [“recess”] should mean something real, not something imaginary; something actual, not something fictitious. They used the word as the mass of mankind then understood it and now understand it. It means, in our judgment, . . . the period of time when the Senate is not sitting in regular or extraordinary session as a branch of Congress, or in extraordinary session for the discharge of executive functions; when its members owe no duty of attendance; when its Chamber is empty; when, because of its absence, it cannot receive communications from the President or participate as a body in making appointments.
S. Rep. No. 58–4389, at 2 (1905).
But by all means, since you’re the legal expert, please explain who would have standing to bring suit against the President for this. Please explain what their complaint would be and how they have been harmed. Also, please explain why you don’t consider a minority party of one body of one branch of government preventing a law that has been duly passed from functioning an overreach of power.
“There are only a handful of Senators there, playing a game to block the President from using his rights.”
Why, that’s precisely what the Democrats did to President Bush – imagine that.
By the way, Congress is empowered to make its own rules regarding how it conducts its daily operations as long as it doesn’t violate the Constitution. So the practice of holding pro-forma sessions, odious to you when Republicans do it but smart politicking when Democrats routinely do it, is Constitutional.
The President’s making recess appointments when Congress is in pro-forma session is not Constitutional. President Bush declined to do it. I note that your constant assertions that President Bush did do it is never accompanied by an example of his doing so.
The ritual “LOL” and knee-jerk denigration of the Heritage Foundation is getting really, really old by the way. It’s the intellectual equivalent of shouting “neener, neener.”
The LOLs derive from the ridiculousness of your posts. You act as though Evans v. Stephens never happened. When prodded for further explanations of your copy/pastings, you are mute. I dismissed the Heritage Foundation, as anyone with any credibility beyond a partisan hack would, exactly once and you claimed that that is “getting really, really old.” It was one time. That goes to show you’re more interested in hyperbole than reality — gee, much like the Heritage Foundation!
I will continue to laugh at you because you have nothing to offer beyond parroted talking points. You can’t even articulate who has standing against the President in this and what their legal complaint and harm would be. You can’t explain how, despite Senate rules defining what “in session” actually means (conducting actual business and not something artificial or imaginary), they are in fact, still really in session.
You’re pretty thick, aren’t you?
Pro-forma sessions, odious as they are, were routinely used by Harry Reid to block recess appointments by President Bush.
You still can’t answer the questions I see.
And they shouldn’t have been. No more should there be pro forma sessions to block President Obama. The pro forma manipulation need to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Unfortunately the pro forma sessions are now used by both parties in Congress to thwart the legislative process and the executive responsibilities. When a law has been corrupted from it’s original purpose it’s time to reassess and restructure the law. I believe Congress’s pro forma nonsense will be challenged in court and it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide.
I’m in agreement.
Actually The Senates definition of pro forma sessions will not be up for review. The Presidents right to decide what they are will be.
Well, this seems a direct violation of the separation of powers principle.
Yeah, but a minority party using tricks to prevent executive functions and a bureau from functioning doesn’t present an issue with the separations of powers principle?
Congress is free to set its own rules, for better or worse.
There is no historical or Constitutional precedent for a President interfering with Congressional rule setting within its own body. It’s a blatant attempt at interference by one co-equal branch of the federal government with the operation of another co-equal branch.
As I’ve stated before and as you have ignored before, the Senate doesn’t define being “in session” the way you do. The minority party in one body of one branch hardly constitutes “co-equal.” That party is using tricks to prevent one branch from exercising his powers. Somehow that isn’t problematic to you. Somehow that isn’t a “blatant attempt at interference.” The Senate is not conducting business, they cannot confirm anybody right now because the Senators aren’t there — as the Senate rules define, that means they’re not in session. As case law allows, appointees can be made during the recesses of pro forma sessions. You’re nothing but a partisan hack and a hypocrite — that’s obvious through your inconsistent logic.
Isn’t the legislative branch setting up pro forma sessions to block the power of the president interfering with the powers granted by the constitution to the executive branch?
Pro forma sessions are a tactic, just as a President’s using Executive Orders is.
Yes, yes I know they are a tactic. The question is can one branch of the government use a tactic that prevents another branch from exercising it’s constitutionally granted power.
Lefty Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe’s opinion is being challenged by other legal experts.
Neither House of Congress can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house and as the House of Representatives has not consented to a Senate recess, the Senate is NOT in recess.
The editorial muddies the waters regarding recess appointments by Presidents.
In 2007, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared the Senate in pro forma session for the two-week Thanksgiving break. These pro-forma sessions would continue until the end of George W. Bush’s presidency in January 2009. Republicans were furious at this deliberate ploy to keep Bush from making recess appointments by never declaring a formal recess.
In other words, President Bush respected the Constitution, as he should have, and recognized that he could not make recess appointments during pro-forma sessions of Congress.
What Obama has done is declare, emperor-like, that the Senate is “in recess” when per agreement with the GOP-led house it was in pro-forma session, and made his unconstitutional appointment of Cordray.
Breathtaking arrogance, and the press is running interference for him, as usual.
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-the-cordray-appointment-constitutional/the-president-abused-his-power
The CFFB is an incredibly powerful agency. It is not a national version of a consumer complaint group. It is much more than that.
The CFFB falls within the purview of the Federal Reserve. Its powers do not come from Congress. There is no Congressional and little Presidential oversight.
Example: The Fed as an independent group effectively precludes presidential oversight, while the Federal
Reserve is statutorily prohibited from “intervening” in CFPB affairs.
This is a scary bunch with no real oversight that can create regulations and punishment for these as yet unidentified infractions on the fly. There is no one to oversee that. Many of those regulations have not been created yet and will have zero input from Congress.
Giving a Quasi-government agency power like this setting up a whole new bureaucracy that can create its own rules governing every financial transaction from mortgages to you buying a sofa from your neighbor should frighten everyone.
It’s the kind of agency the left yearns for, it’s the stuff of their dreams.
These are the same folks who are always screaming about the oppression of the little pipples who have no voice in their governance.
Go figure.
Little pipples with no voices are so tiresome.
Little pipples who claim voicelessness and then advocate for Big Government are very tiresome.
How do little pipples with no voices go about advocating?
The law that creates the bureau has already been passed.
It may well have passed but I bet folks don’t know its full power.
The legislators that passed it knew it’s full power (unless they didn’t do their homework) and passed it. They cannot now honestly say they didn’t know what was in the bill.
This was passed under a Democratic Congress. They knew at the time. Folks like the BDN choose not to let people know what the Fin Reg bill entailed. I did not know until recently that this new agency has control over every financial transaction. Did you?
Every financial transaction? So, who’s going to monitor allowances to kids, paying the dry cleaners, donations to charitable organizations, the tab at the bar?
They have the right to look at those transaction if they like.
I’m skeptical
OK.
So the argument against the bureau is that consumers should just be more careful and informed (“buyer beware”), but the argument against the law that created the bureau in the first place is that us poor Americans just weren’t spoon fed the information necessary to be against the law? What a joke.
Gosh. You do make up things for me to say don’t you.
He appears to have a rich fantasy life.
So the Republicans don’t want a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to help ordinary citizens deal with the machinations and greed of the financial industry.
They don’t want citizens protected against : hate crimes, egg and meat precessing plants that deliver E. coli, credit card companies that secretly increase rates and insurance companies refusing medical care for pre-existing conditions either.
Nor do they don’t want aid extended to those: without resources, with mortgages underwater, the unemployed, the drug addicted, small children in need of support and education, families in need and education in general.
Additionally, they don’t want gay marriage, gays in the services, cuts to military spending, Social Security, infrastructure repair, job creation if it cost them money, higher education (snotty elites) PBS, NPR, environmental laws, food safety laws, unions, teachers, state workers.
Republicans define themselves by what they dislike, distain and want to destroy rather than by anything positive. The only thing they seem to be for is a form of Stone Age competition where the last person standing owns everything. Is this their vision for the United States?
Well said
Who is helping the so called average citizen when the IRS starts sending notices or a case is referred to the IRS collections office better known as ACS? You might think the big mean banks and telecommunication companies are bad and they are but they are also sissies when you compare them to the thugs at the IRS.
I’d rather have Tony Soprano after me than the IRS.
So you didn’t fill out your income tax properly or it wasn’t on time and the IRS audited you. That is the law: send a correct income tax return to the IRS on time, That’s not thuggery. Where’s all that personal responsibility you keep talking about.
Here is what your Moonbats in Washington just gave you.
FBI Pushes to Classify Undercover Animal Abuse Investigations as ‘Terrorism’
see link for full story
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/278490/20120109/fbi-pushes-classify-undercover-animal-abuse-investigations.htm
By Natural News | January 9, 2012 1:56 PM EST
(NaturalNews) The USA Patriot Act, the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA), and various other unconstitutional
“anti-terrorism” legislation all appear to be getting turned right back
around on the American people. It has been revealed that the US
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
has been keeping files on animal rights activists who conduct
undercover investigations of factory farms, and the agency is now
recommending that these activists be prosecuted as “terrorists.”
Most of the video footage that has captured things like chickens
stacked in endless rows of filthy battery cages, or pigs being beaten
and forced mercilessly through food processing machines was captured by
individuals who did so under cover, often having to lie to the farm
owners to gain entry. This act of civil disobedience has been crucial
in exposing extreme abuse, and in giving the public a glimpse into how
animals raised for commercial consumption are treated.
These undercover investigations, of course, have also led many
consumers to either stop eating meat altogether, or purchase meat from
small-scale, family farms that raise their animals with dignity, and
that allow them to live normal lives outside and on pastures, instead
of in large, densely-packed warehouses and feedlots where the animals
often never see the light of day.
In 2006, Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA),
which proponents insisted was only aimed at animal rights groups that
burn down buildings, for instance, or commit various other legitimate
property crimes. But now that the legislation is law, the FBI
wants to use it to target those who merely try to expose what goes on
behind the scenes at some of the nation’s largest and most well-known
factory farms.
According to the FBI, filming horrendous conditions at factory farms
can cause said farms to experience “economic loss,” which the agency
says fits the parameters of AETA’s “terrorist” activity. In other
words, the mere act of taking pictures or capturing video at factory
farms is a “reasonable indication,” according to the FBI, that an
individual has violated AETA.
Most of us would not be in trouble with these issues if we had decided to not participate in the first place.
Could this paper possibly get any more in the bag for Obozo?