Anonymous wrote:You know what would have avoided all this? If Warren had just created a normal independent agency with 5 commissioners, etc, funded by appropriations or user fees.

But noooo — she had to be radical and create a weird, unprecedented agency structure with a single guy, funded by the Fed, that just upset constitutional conservatives (“stickin’ to FedSoc” or whatever.

FOAFO.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge enjoining some or all of the RIF for right now!

What does this mean?

That CFPB employees will continue to get paid for doing no work. That's what "efficiency" means in this administration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge enjoining some or all of the RIF for right now!

What does this mean?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge enjoining some or all of the RIF for right now!

What does this mean?

Anonymous wrote:Judge enjoining some or all of the RIF for right now!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what would have avoided all this? If Warren had just created a normal independent agency with 5 commissioners, etc, funded by appropriations or user fees.

But noooo — she had to be radical and create a weird, unprecedented agency structure with a single guy, funded by the Fed, that just upset constitutional conservatives (“stickin’ to FedSoc” or whatever.

FOAFO.

I guess you're not aware that the Supreme Court has taken up the issue of whether the "commission" structure of the NLRB and MSPB are constitutional. And I guess you're also not aware that just this week the President removed the two democratic members of the NCUA board. Unless you know that SCOTUS will find that the President unlawfully fired members of all three of these "commission" agencies, you can't say that a commission structure would have saved the CFPB.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that a lot of people view the CFPB as a critical watchdog, and yes, protecting consumers is important. But there’s another side to the story that doesn’t get enough attention—mainly, how the agency has sometimes overreached and caused real problems, especially for small businesses and community lenders.

For example, the CFPB created a massive public complaint database that lets anyone file a grievance against a company, even if it’s never verified. That might sound empowering, but imagine running a small business and seeing your name publicly smeared over something that was never investigated. It can do real damage without due process.

They also rolled out rules—like the Qualified Mortgage rule—that hit small banks and credit unions hard, even though these institutions weren’t the ones handing out risky loans in the first place. And in auto lending, the CFPB tried to regulate dealerships, even though Congress had specifically carved them out of its authority. That move got enough pushback that they eventually backed down.

So sure, the mission sounds good on paper. But in practice, the CFPB has at times acted more like an unchecked regulator than a thoughtful consumer advocate. That’s not a slam on the idea of consumer protection—it’s a reminder that even well-meaning agencies need oversight and boundaries.

How is this different from google reviews, yelp, BBB, etc.? The complaint database is actually really difficult to navigate if you're a consumer trying to look up info on a specific company. A google review is actually much easier to find and likely can do more damage to a small business.

Anonymous wrote:You know what would have avoided all this? If Warren had just created a normal independent agency with 5 commissioners, etc, funded by appropriations or user fees.

But noooo — she had to be radical and create a weird, unprecedented agency structure with a single guy, funded by the Fed, that just upset constitutional conservatives (“stickin’ to FedSoc” or whatever.

FOAFO.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that a lot of people view the CFPB as a critical watchdog, and yes, protecting consumers is important. But there’s another side to the story that doesn’t get enough attention—mainly, how the agency has sometimes overreached and caused real problems, especially for small businesses and community lenders.

For example, the CFPB created a massive public complaint database that lets anyone file a grievance against a company, even if it’s never verified. That might sound empowering, but imagine running a small business and seeing your name publicly smeared over something that was never investigated. It can do real damage without due process.

They also rolled out rules—like the Qualified Mortgage rule—that hit small banks and credit unions hard, even though these institutions weren’t the ones handing out risky loans in the first place. And in auto lending, the CFPB tried to regulate dealerships, even though Congress had specifically carved them out of its authority. That move got enough pushback that they eventually backed down.

So sure, the mission sounds good on paper. But in practice, the CFPB has at times acted more like an unchecked regulator than a thoughtful consumer advocate. That’s not a slam on the idea of consumer protection—it’s a reminder that even well-meaning agencies need oversight and boundaries.

How is this different from google reviews, yelp, BBB, etc.? The complaint database is actually really difficult to navigate if you're a consumer trying to look up info on a specific company. A google review is actually much easier to find and likely can do more damage to a small business.

Anonymous wrote:I get that a lot of people view the CFPB as a critical watchdog, and yes, protecting consumers is important. But there’s another side to the story that doesn’t get enough attention—mainly, how the agency has sometimes overreached and caused real problems, especially for small businesses and community lenders.

For example, the CFPB created a massive public complaint database that lets anyone file a grievance against a company, even if it’s never verified. That might sound empowering, but imagine running a small business and seeing your name publicly smeared over something that was never investigated. It can do real damage without due process.

They also rolled out rules—like the Qualified Mortgage rule—that hit small banks and credit unions hard, even though these institutions weren’t the ones handing out risky loans in the first place. And in auto lending, the CFPB tried to regulate dealerships, even though Congress had specifically carved them out of its authority. That move got enough pushback that they eventually backed down.

So sure, the mission sounds good on paper. But in practice, the CFPB has at times acted more like an unchecked regulator than a thoughtful consumer advocate. That’s not a slam on the idea of consumer protection—it’s a reminder that even well-meaning agencies need oversight and boundaries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that a lot of people view the CFPB as a critical watchdog, and yes, protecting consumers is important. But there’s another side to the story that doesn’t get enough attention—mainly, how the agency has sometimes overreached and caused real problems, especially for small businesses and community lenders.

For example, the CFPB created a massive public complaint database that lets anyone file a grievance against a company, even if it’s never verified. That might sound empowering, but imagine running a small business and seeing your name publicly smeared over something that was never investigated. It can do real damage without due process.

They also rolled out rules—like the Qualified Mortgage rule—that hit small banks and credit unions hard, even though these institutions weren’t the ones handing out risky loans in the first place. And in auto lending, the CFPB tried to regulate dealerships, even though Congress had specifically carved them out of its authority. That move got enough pushback that they eventually backed down.

So sure, the mission sounds good on paper. But in practice, the CFPB has at times acted more like an unchecked regulator than a thoughtful consumer advocate. That’s not a slam on the idea of consumer protection—it’s a reminder that even well-meaning agencies need oversight and boundaries.

Sounds like you run a shitty, exploitative business, Comrade.

lol right. Reads like ChatGPT was told to make up a “reasonable” argument for illegally destroying an agency where the sole mission is consumer protection. “Wellll actualllllly the agency just needs more oversight and boundaries” when the administration just fired 90% of people there. HA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get that a lot of people view the CFPB as a critical watchdog, and yes, protecting consumers is important. But there’s another side to the story that doesn’t get enough attention—mainly, how the agency has sometimes overreached and caused real problems, especially for small businesses and community lenders.

For example, the CFPB created a massive public complaint database that lets anyone file a grievance against a company, even if it’s never verified. That might sound empowering, but imagine running a small business and seeing your name publicly smeared over something that was never investigated. It can do real damage without due process.

They also rolled out rules—like the Qualified Mortgage rule—that hit small banks and credit unions hard, even though these institutions weren’t the ones handing out risky loans in the first place. And in auto lending, the CFPB tried to regulate dealerships, even though Congress had specifically carved them out of its authority. That move got enough pushback that they eventually backed down.

So sure, the mission sounds good on paper. But in practice, the CFPB has at times acted more like an unchecked regulator than a thoughtful consumer advocate. That’s not a slam on the idea of consumer protection—it’s a reminder that even well-meaning agencies need oversight and boundaries.

Sounds like you run a shitty, exploitative business, Comrade.

Anonymous wrote:I get that a lot of people view the CFPB as a critical watchdog, and yes, protecting consumers is important. But there’s another side to the story that doesn’t get enough attention—mainly, how the agency has sometimes overreached and caused real problems, especially for small businesses and community lenders.

For example, the CFPB created a massive public complaint database that lets anyone file a grievance against a company, even if it’s never verified. That might sound empowering, but imagine running a small business and seeing your name publicly smeared over something that was never investigated. It can do real damage without due process.

They also rolled out rules—like the Qualified Mortgage rule—that hit small banks and credit unions hard, even though these institutions weren’t the ones handing out risky loans in the first place. And in auto lending, the CFPB tried to regulate dealerships, even though Congress had specifically carved them out of its authority. That move got enough pushback that they eventually backed down.

So sure, the mission sounds good on paper. But in practice, the CFPB has at times acted more like an unchecked regulator than a thoughtful consumer advocate. That’s not a slam on the idea of consumer protection—it’s a reminder that even well-meaning agencies need oversight and boundaries.