Shutting down the CFPB

[Anonymous]

Congress never appropriated money for CFPB.
So the impoundment argument will not hold up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many lawsuits have they dropped over the last few weeks? Those defrauded consumers will never, ever get their money back now. Can someone explain why this administration wants to protect skeezy lenders?

That’s just who they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many lawsuits have they dropped over the last few weeks? Those defrauded consumers will never, ever get their money back now. Can someone explain why this administration wants to protect skeezy lenders?

Republican Senate just passed a bill increasing bank overdraft fees, which had been capped by a CFPB rule at $5. The average overdraft fee when not capped is $35.

Have you heard of a thing called inflation? Can you get a five dollar footlong anymore?

At least the people paying $35 overdraft fees didn't get debanked for reputation risks.

Those things have nothing to do with one another. WTF are you talking about? Enjoy getting scammed by banks, credit card companies, mortgage lenders, and the brand new X payments system. It’s all legal now. Oh and so is debanking!

I’m sure being distracted by the “debanking” bogeyman, which is only tangentially connected to CFPB— at best!, was worth it.

So you're saying the CFPB was powerless to stop debanking? It just exists to regulate the fees they charge? And this can't be done by one of the other billion financial regulatory agencies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Congress never appropriated money for CFPB.
So the impoundment argument will not hold up.

What does this mean?

CFPB’s funding structure was upheld by SCOTUS less than a year ago, anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many lawsuits have they dropped over the last few weeks? Those defrauded consumers will never, ever get their money back now. Can someone explain why this administration wants to protect skeezy lenders?

Republican Senate just passed a bill increasing bank overdraft fees, which had been capped by a CFPB rule at $5. The average overdraft fee when not capped is $35.

Have you heard of a thing called inflation? Can you get a five dollar footlong anymore?

At least the people paying $35 overdraft fees didn't get debanked for reputation risks.

Those things have nothing to do with one another. WTF are you talking about? Enjoy getting scammed by banks, credit card companies, mortgage lenders, and the brand new X payments system. It’s all legal now. Oh and so is debanking!

I’m sure being distracted by the “debanking” bogeyman, which is only tangentially connected to CFPB— at best!, was worth it.

So you're saying the CFPB was powerless to stop debanking? It just exists to regulate the fees they charge? And this can't be done by one of the other billion financial regulatory agencies?

We’d all love to read one, even semi-relevant thing from you that doesn’t use the word “debanking.” Please. Enlighten us with everything you know about financial regulation. Please tell us all your well-informed opinions about the complete shutdown of a consumer protection agency. I’d love to hear why dropping a dozen lawsuits against scam artists and predatory lenders is good policy, too. Please tell us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congress never appropriated money for CFPB.
So the impoundment argument will not hold up.

What does this mean?

CFPB’s funding structure was upheld by SCOTUS less than a year ago, anyway.

Trump can have his appointee not spend the money, and there can be no objection that he is illegally impounding money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congress never appropriated money for CFPB.
So the impoundment argument will not hold up.

What does this mean?

CFPB’s funding structure was upheld by SCOTUS less than a year ago, anyway.

Trump can have his appointee not spend the money, and there can be no objection that he is illegally impounding money.

No. This argument has been a big part of the litigation, and the agency has already been enjoined from doing that— as that is also functionally shutting down the agency.

[Anonymous]

Look, if they want to shut it down, Congress needs to pass a law. They could shut it down entirely. They could completely transform it. They could do anything. They could focus on ANY cause. (Even their current obsession with “debanking” which is a lot of crypto astroturfing.)

But they can’t, can they? They don’t have the votes to do any of that, and CFPB’s mission and work are actually pretty popular. And they have no vision nor actually care about any consumer protection. Sorry to anyone who got scammed or who has any issues with their bank or mortgage company or whatever! So they resort to dumb tricks like not requesting funding or trying to fire everyone so that it is just a shell of an agency. But if it’s so clear that CFPB is sooo illegal and so useless, why can’t Congress come up with anything better? Why have they failed for 15 years to destroy it, through the most ridiculous legal tricks (that even SCOTUS rejected— twice)?

They can’t do any better and they have ALL branches of government? Pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many lawsuits have they dropped over the last few weeks? Those defrauded consumers will never, ever get their money back now. Can someone explain why this administration wants to protect skeezy lenders?

Republican Senate just passed a bill increasing bank overdraft fees, which had been capped by a CFPB rule at $5. The average overdraft fee when not capped is $35.

Have you heard of a thing called inflation? Can you get a five dollar footlong anymore?

At least the people paying $35 overdraft fees didn't get debanked for reputation risks.

Those things have nothing to do with one another. WTF are you talking about? Enjoy getting scammed by banks, credit card companies, mortgage lenders, and the brand new X payments system. It’s all legal now. Oh and so is debanking!

I’m sure being distracted by the “debanking” bogeyman, which is only tangentially connected to CFPB— at best!, was worth it.

So you're saying the CFPB was powerless to stop debanking? It just exists to regulate the fees they charge? And this can't be done by one of the other billion financial regulatory agencies?

We’d all love to read one, even semi-relevant thing from you that doesn’t use the word “debanking.” Please. Enlighten us with everything you know about financial regulation. Please tell us all your well-informed opinions about the complete shutdown of a consumer protection agency. I’d love to hear why dropping a dozen lawsuits against scam artists and predatory lenders is good policy, too. Please tell us.

The charge is that the benefits of the CFPB don't justify what it costs to operate, making it a net negative for the country.

To disprove this charge, you and your ilk presented capping overdraft fees at $5, which is now $35. That was the best you could come up with.

My point is, that if this agency actually did something useful, it might be worth saving. Examples of something useful would include protecting people from debanking. But, banning usury or breaking up big banks would also be something useful. But those things would actually protect consumers, rather than just create regulatory burden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many lawsuits have they dropped over the last few weeks? Those defrauded consumers will never, ever get their money back now. Can someone explain why this administration wants to protect skeezy lenders?

Republican Senate just passed a bill increasing bank overdraft fees, which had been capped by a CFPB rule at $5. The average overdraft fee when not capped is $35.

Have you heard of a thing called inflation? Can you get a five dollar footlong anymore?

At least the people paying $35 overdraft fees didn't get debanked for reputation risks.

Those things have nothing to do with one another. WTF are you talking about? Enjoy getting scammed by banks, credit card companies, mortgage lenders, and the brand new X payments system. It’s all legal now. Oh and so is debanking!

I’m sure being distracted by the “debanking” bogeyman, which is only tangentially connected to CFPB— at best!, was worth it.

So you're saying the CFPB was powerless to stop debanking? It just exists to regulate the fees they charge? And this can't be done by one of the other billion financial regulatory agencies?

We’d all love to read one, even semi-relevant thing from you that doesn’t use the word “debanking.” Please. Enlighten us with everything you know about financial regulation. Please tell us all your well-informed opinions about the complete shutdown of a consumer protection agency. I’d love to hear why dropping a dozen lawsuits against scam artists and predatory lenders is good policy, too. Please tell us.

The charge is that the benefits of the CFPB don't justify what it costs to operate, making it a net negative for the country.

To disprove this charge, you and your ilk presented capping overdraft fees at $5, which is now $35. That was the best you could come up with.

My point is, that if this agency actually did something useful, it might be worth saving. Examples of something useful would include protecting people from debanking. But, banning usury or breaking up big banks would also be something useful. But those things would actually protect consumers, rather than just create regulatory burden.

DP. The government is not a business and there is no reason to run it like one, no reason it should have good ROI.

The government is not Twitter, the IRS is not a bank (neither is the Fed). Doge has no idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many lawsuits have they dropped over the last few weeks? Those defrauded consumers will never, ever get their money back now. Can someone explain why this administration wants to protect skeezy lenders?

Republican Senate just passed a bill increasing bank overdraft fees, which had been capped by a CFPB rule at $5. The average overdraft fee when not capped is $35.

Have you heard of a thing called inflation? Can you get a five dollar footlong anymore?

At least the people paying $35 overdraft fees didn't get debanked for reputation risks.

Those things have nothing to do with one another. WTF are you talking about? Enjoy getting scammed by banks, credit card companies, mortgage lenders, and the brand new X payments system. It’s all legal now. Oh and so is debanking!

I’m sure being distracted by the “debanking” bogeyman, which is only tangentially connected to CFPB— at best!, was worth it.

So you're saying the CFPB was powerless to stop debanking? It just exists to regulate the fees they charge? And this can't be done by one of the other billion financial regulatory agencies?

We’d all love to read one, even semi-relevant thing from you that doesn’t use the word “debanking.” Please. Enlighten us with everything you know about financial regulation. Please tell us all your well-informed opinions about the complete shutdown of a consumer protection agency. I’d love to hear why dropping a dozen lawsuits against scam artists and predatory lenders is good policy, too. Please tell us.

The charge is that the benefits of the CFPB don't justify what it costs to operate, making it a net negative for the country.

To disprove this charge, you and your ilk presented capping overdraft fees at $5, which is now $35. That was the best you could come up with.

My point is, that if this agency actually did something useful, it might be worth saving. Examples of something useful would include protecting people from debanking. But, banning usury or breaking up big banks would also be something useful. But those things would actually protect consumers, rather than just create regulatory burden.

You seem entirely unfamiliar with what the CFPB does.
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/actions/portfolio-recovery-associates-llc/

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-sues-think-finance-collecting-debts-consumers-did-not-legally-owe/

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-and-new-york-attorney-general-sue-credit-acceptance-for-hiding-auto-loan-costs-setting-borrowers-up-to-fail/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many lawsuits have they dropped over the last few weeks? Those defrauded consumers will never, ever get their money back now. Can someone explain why this administration wants to protect skeezy lenders?

Republican Senate just passed a bill increasing bank overdraft fees, which had been capped by a CFPB rule at $5. The average overdraft fee when not capped is $35.

Have you heard of a thing called inflation? Can you get a five dollar footlong anymore?

At least the people paying $35 overdraft fees didn't get debanked for reputation risks.

Those things have nothing to do with one another. WTF are you talking about? Enjoy getting scammed by banks, credit card companies, mortgage lenders, and the brand new X payments system. It’s all legal now. Oh and so is debanking!

I’m sure being distracted by the “debanking” bogeyman, which is only tangentially connected to CFPB— at best!, was worth it.

So you're saying the CFPB was powerless to stop debanking? It just exists to regulate the fees they charge? And this can't be done by one of the other billion financial regulatory agencies?

before he was fired by Trump, Rohit Chopra issued a statement literally agreeing that debanking was a shared CFPB concern. The issue with the CFPB is that it generally focuses on individual consumers and not businesses, but debanking of businesses could be within its scope. At the same time, bank regulators obviously are primarily concerned with safety and soundness, so they have an inherent mandate (different from CFPB) to ensure that banks are not taking on customers with too much risk - so what crypto bros claim is “debarking” is actually bona fide risk management.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many lawsuits have they dropped over the last few weeks? Those defrauded consumers will never, ever get their money back now. Can someone explain why this administration wants to protect skeezy lenders?

Republican Senate just passed a bill increasing bank overdraft fees, which had been capped by a CFPB rule at $5. The average overdraft fee when not capped is $35.

Have you heard of a thing called inflation? Can you get a five dollar footlong anymore?

At least the people paying $35 overdraft fees didn't get debanked for reputation risks.

Those things have nothing to do with one another. WTF are you talking about? Enjoy getting scammed by banks, credit card companies, mortgage lenders, and the brand new X payments system. It’s all legal now. Oh and so is debanking!

I’m sure being distracted by the “debanking” bogeyman, which is only tangentially connected to CFPB— at best!, was worth it.

So you're saying the CFPB was powerless to stop debanking? It just exists to regulate the fees they charge? And this can't be done by one of the other billion financial regulatory agencies?

We’d all love to read one, even semi-relevant thing from you that doesn’t use the word “debanking.” Please. Enlighten us with everything you know about financial regulation. Please tell us all your well-informed opinions about the complete shutdown of a consumer protection agency. I’d love to hear why dropping a dozen lawsuits against scam artists and predatory lenders is good policy, too. Please tell us.

The charge is that the benefits of the CFPB don't justify what it costs to operate, making it a net negative for the country.

To disprove this charge, you and your ilk presented capping overdraft fees at $5, which is now $35. That was the best you could come up with.

My point is, that if this agency actually did something useful, it might be worth saving. Examples of something useful would include protecting people from debanking. But, banning usury or breaking up big banks would also be something useful. But those things would actually protect consumers, rather than just create regulatory burden.

Lololol!! Read a book dude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many lawsuits have they dropped over the last few weeks? Those defrauded consumers will never, ever get their money back now. Can someone explain why this administration wants to protect skeezy lenders?

Republican Senate just passed a bill increasing bank overdraft fees, which had been capped by a CFPB rule at $5. The average overdraft fee when not capped is $35.

Have you heard of a thing called inflation? Can you get a five dollar footlong anymore?

At least the people paying $35 overdraft fees didn't get debanked for reputation risks.

Those things have nothing to do with one another. WTF are you talking about? Enjoy getting scammed by banks, credit card companies, mortgage lenders, and the brand new X payments system. It’s all legal now. Oh and so is debanking!

I’m sure being distracted by the “debanking” bogeyman, which is only tangentially connected to CFPB— at best!, was worth it.

So you're saying the CFPB was powerless to stop debanking? It just exists to regulate the fees they charge? And this can't be done by one of the other billion financial regulatory agencies?

We’d all love to read one, even semi-relevant thing from you that doesn’t use the word “debanking.” Please. Enlighten us with everything you know about financial regulation. Please tell us all your well-informed opinions about the complete shutdown of a consumer protection agency. I’d love to hear why dropping a dozen lawsuits against scam artists and predatory lenders is good policy, too. Please tell us.

The charge is that the benefits of the CFPB don't justify what it costs to operate, making it a net negative for the country.

To disprove this charge, you and your ilk presented capping overdraft fees at $5, which is now $35. That was the best you could come up with.

My point is, that if this agency actually did something useful, it might be worth saving. Examples of something useful would include protecting people from debanking. But, banning usury or breaking up big banks would also be something useful. But those things would actually protect consumers, rather than just create regulatory burden.

You seem entirely unfamiliar with what the CFPB does.
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/actions/portfolio-recovery-associates-llc/

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-sues-think-finance-collecting-debts-consumers-did-not-legally-owe/

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-and-new-york-attorney-general-sue-credit-acceptance-for-hiding-auto-loan-costs-setting-borrowers-up-to-fail/

Not to mention the fact that the CFPB has no statutory authors to “break up big banks” and is expressly prohibited from regulating usury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many lawsuits have they dropped over the last few weeks? Those defrauded consumers will never, ever get their money back now. Can someone explain why this administration wants to protect skeezy lenders?

Republican Senate just passed a bill increasing bank overdraft fees, which had been capped by a CFPB rule at $5. The average overdraft fee when not capped is $35.

Have you heard of a thing called inflation? Can you get a five dollar footlong anymore?

At least the people paying $35 overdraft fees didn't get debanked for reputation risks.

Those things have nothing to do with one another. WTF are you talking about? Enjoy getting scammed by banks, credit card companies, mortgage lenders, and the brand new X payments system. It’s all legal now. Oh and so is debanking!

I’m sure being distracted by the “debanking” bogeyman, which is only tangentially connected to CFPB— at best!, was worth it.

So you're saying the CFPB was powerless to stop debanking? It just exists to regulate the fees they charge? And this can't be done by one of the other billion financial regulatory agencies?

before he was fired by Trump, Rohit Chopra issued a statement literally agreeing that debanking was a shared CFPB concern. The issue with the CFPB is that it generally focuses on individual consumers and not businesses, but debanking of businesses could be within its scope. At the same time, bank regulators obviously are primarily concerned with safety and soundness, so they have an inherent mandate (different from CFPB) to ensure that banks are not taking on customers with too much risk - so what crypto bros claim is “debarking” is actually bona fide risk management.

You talk about crypto. but the issue with debanking is that banks are punishing conservatives. New York financial regulators told banks to stop servicing gun shops.