Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

No offense, but your overdraft stuff was more compelling. By your own examples this agency seems to exist solely to protect dumb people from the consequences of their actions. It's much like the modern court system in that way. And we see how that's going...

just read Dodd-Frank if you really want to know. But I doubt you do.

I think any agency that requires you to read a 849 page document to understand what it does, probably doesn't do anything useful.

Take almost any other agency, they can explain in a single sentence what they do and why its important. DoD - we blow things up, State - passports and embassies, CIA - overthrowing hostile governments, and so forth.

There's just no pressing need for the CFPB. In fact, much like Dept. of Ed. things have gotten worse for its "beneficiaries" since its creation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

No offense, but your overdraft stuff was more compelling. By your own examples this agency seems to exist solely to protect dumb people from the consequences of their actions. It's much like the modern court system in that way. And we see how that's going...

just read Dodd-Frank if you really want to know. But I doubt you do.

I think any agency that requires you to read a 849 page document to understand what it does, probably doesn't do anything useful.

Take almost any other agency, they can explain in a single sentence what they do and why its important. DoD - we blow things up, State - passports and embassies, CIA - overthrowing hostile governments, and so forth.

There's just no pressing need for the CFPB. In fact, much like Dept. of Ed. things have gotten worse for its "beneficiaries" since its creation.

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.

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?

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.

And that has what to do with the CFPB …?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

No offense, but your overdraft stuff was more compelling. By your own examples this agency seems to exist solely to protect dumb people from the consequences of their actions. It's much like the modern court system in that way. And we see how that's going...

just read Dodd-Frank if you really want to know. But I doubt you do.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

And that has what to do with the CFPB …?

If the answer is nothing, which seems to be in debate, then what is even the point here? We have State Attorney Generals already after all...

I have yet to hear a compelling reason for this agency's existence. It's been around over a decade so surely there is something meaningful right?

Anonymous wrote:

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/

No offense, but your overdraft stuff was more compelling. By your own examples this agency seems to exist solely to protect dumb people from the consequences of their actions. It's much like the modern court system in that way. And we see how that's going...

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?

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.

And that has what to do with the CFPB …?

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/

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?

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.

And that has what to do with the CFPB …?

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?

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.