Lindsey Graham: Consumer Protection Bureau 'Is Something Out Of The Stalinist Era'

[J.E.D]

Sen Lindsey Graham seems to think that the new consumer protection bureau is tantamount to a communist takeover. At least that's the excuse he's using for opposing a single director for the agency. He - and presumably the entire GOP - would prefer that a board of bank regulators have veto power over the agency's decisions (really). He also wants Congress to be able to restrict the agency's funding. Graham doesn't seem to get (or care) that the entire reason for the agency's existence is to give consumer's an independent voice to fight for their rights and to protect them from predatoty lending and other practices that lead to the financial meltdown. The scenario that Graham envisions would leave the agency open to lobbyists, cronyism and Congressional meddling.

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Sunday that an agency established to protect consumers from financial fraud "is something out of the Stalinist era."

Graham, speaking on NBC's "Meet The Press," was asked why Senate Republicans had filibustered President Obama's nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was created as part of 2010's Wall Street reform.

Graham spoke as if the bureau had yet to be created and debate was over how to shape it, rather than discussing the nominee, Richard Cordray, the former attorney general in Ohio.

"This consumer bureau that they want to propose is under the Federal Reserve, no appropriation oversight, no board. It is something out of the Stalinist era," Graham said.

The CFPB moved through both chambers of Congress and passed the Senate in a landslide, winning 60 votes, including three Republicans.

"The reason Republicans don't want to vote for it is we want a board, not one person making all the regulatory decisions," said Graham, continuing to talk as if the bureau doesn't yet exist.

Republicans have insisted that they will oppose any nominee unless a board of bank regulators is empowered to veto decisions the consumer bureau makes. The GOP also wants Congress to be able to restrict the bureau's funding, as it regularly attempts to do with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and other agencies whose missions are opposed by big business.

Lindsey Graham: Consumer Protection Bureau 'Is Something Out Of The Stalinist Era'

 

[The Rabbi]

He's right. The agency is unaccountable and probably unconstitutional. It's budget is not voted on by Congress.

 

[WillowTree]

Sen Lindsey Graham seems to think that the new consumer protection bureau is tantamount to a communist takeover. At least that's the excuse he's using for opposing a single director for the agency. He - and presumably the entire GOP - would prefer that a board of bank regulators have veto power over the agency's decisions (really). He also wants Congress to be able to restrict the agency's funding. Graham doesn't seem to get (or care) that the entire reason for the agency's existence is to give consumer's an independent voice to fight for their rights and to protect them from predatoty lending and other practices that lead to the financial meltdown. The scenario that Graham envisions would leave the agency open to lobbyists, cronyism and Congressional meddling.

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Sunday that an agency established to protect consumers from financial fraud "is something out of the Stalinist era."

Graham, speaking on NBC's "Meet The Press," was asked why Senate Republicans had filibustered President Obama's nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was created as part of 2010's Wall Street reform.

Graham spoke as if the bureau had yet to be created and debate was over how to shape it, rather than discussing the nominee, Richard Cordray, the former attorney general in Ohio.

"This consumer bureau that they want to propose is under the Federal Reserve, no appropriation oversight, no board. It is something out of the Stalinist era," Graham said.

The CFPB moved through both chambers of Congress and passed the Senate in a landslide, winning 60 votes, including three Republicans.

"The reason Republicans don't want to vote for it is we want a board, not one person making all the regulatory decisions," said Graham, continuing to talk as if the bureau doesn't yet exist.

Republicans have insisted that they will oppose any nominee unless a board of bank regulators is empowered to veto decisions the consumer bureau makes. The GOP also wants Congress to be able to restrict the bureau's funding, as it regularly attempts to do with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and other agencies whose missions are opposed by big business.

Lindsey Graham: Consumer Protection Bureau 'Is Something Out Of The Stalinist Era'

cut and paste? what you don't have a brain?

 

[J.E.D]

Sen Lindsey Graham seems to think that the new consumer protection bureau is tantamount to a communist takeover. At least that's the excuse he's using for opposing a single director for the agency. He - and presumably the entire GOP - would prefer that a board of bank regulators have veto power over the agency's decisions (really). He also wants Congress to be able to restrict the agency's funding. Graham doesn't seem to get (or care) that the entire reason for the agency's existence is to give consumer's an independent voice to fight for their rights and to protect them from predatoty lending and other practices that lead to the financial meltdown. The scenario that Graham envisions would leave the agency open to lobbyists, cronyism and Congressional meddling.

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Sunday that an agency established to protect consumers from financial fraud "is something out of the Stalinist era."

Graham, speaking on NBC's "Meet The Press," was asked why Senate Republicans had filibustered President Obama's nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was created as part of 2010's Wall Street reform.

Graham spoke as if the bureau had yet to be created and debate was over how to shape it, rather than discussing the nominee, Richard Cordray, the former attorney general in Ohio.

"This consumer bureau that they want to propose is under the Federal Reserve, no appropriation oversight, no board. It is something out of the Stalinist era," Graham said.

The CFPB moved through both chambers of Congress and passed the Senate in a landslide, winning 60 votes, including three Republicans.

"The reason Republicans don't want to vote for it is we want a board, not one person making all the regulatory decisions," said Graham, continuing to talk as if the bureau doesn't yet exist.

Republicans have insisted that they will oppose any nominee unless a board of bank regulators is empowered to veto decisions the consumer bureau makes. The GOP also wants Congress to be able to restrict the bureau's funding, as it regularly attempts to do with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and other agencies whose missions are opposed by big business.

Lindsey Graham: Consumer Protection Bureau 'Is Something Out Of The Stalinist Era'

cut and paste? what you don't have a brain?

What? Other than the article that I quoted and CITED, the rest of the OP is my words and my words alone. Prove othewise or shut the fuck up you stupid little troll.

 

[J.E.D]

He's right. The agency is unaccountable and probably unconstitutional. It's budget is not voted on by Congress.

Here we go - "It's probably unconstituional". Can't you guys come up with a better excuse?

 

[The Rabbi]

He's right. The agency is unaccountable and probably unconstitutional. It's budget is not voted on by Congress.

Here we go - "It's probably unconstituional". Can't you guys come up with a better excuse?

It' unaccountable and its budget is not voted on by Congress.
Or did you miss that part?

 

[J.E.D]

He's right. The agency is unaccountable and probably unconstitutional. It's budget is not voted on by Congress.

Here we go - "It's probably unconstituional". Can't you guys come up with a better excuse?

It' unaccountable and its budget is not voted on by Congress.
Or did you miss that part?

Did you miss the part where Congress voted for and passed the law that created the agency? Is there a law suit out there challenging the agency's constituionality or are just throwing out the usual GOP talking points and accusations?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"This consumer bureau that they want to propose is under the Federal Reserve, no appropriation oversight, no board. It is something out of the Stalinist era," Graham said.

Leave it to Graham to engage in ignorant hyperbole.

 

[The Rabbi]

Here we go - "It's probably unconstituional". Can't you guys come up with a better excuse?

It' unaccountable and its budget is not voted on by Congress.
Or did you miss that part?

Did you miss the part where Congress voted for and passed the law that created the agency? Is there a law suit out there challenging the agency's constituionality or are just throwing out the usual GOP talking points and accusations?

Is that supposed to be some kind of refutation of anything I wrote?
The agency is not funded by Congress and not accountable to them. That makes it doubtful in its constitutionality as I dont believe Congress can delegate its responsibility in that manner.
But even if it is found 100% constitutional, it is still an undemocratic throwback to Stalinism. Graham is right, for once.

 

[WillowTree]

Sen Lindsey Graham seems to think that the new consumer protection bureau is tantamount to a communist takeover. At least that's the excuse he's using for opposing a single director for the agency. He - and presumably the entire GOP - would prefer that a board of bank regulators have veto power over the agency's decisions (really). He also wants Congress to be able to restrict the agency's funding. Graham doesn't seem to get (or care) that the entire reason for the agency's existence is to give consumer's an independent voice to fight for their rights and to protect them from predatoty lending and other practices that lead to the financial meltdown. The scenario that Graham envisions would leave the agency open to lobbyists, cronyism and Congressional meddling.

cut and paste? what you don't have a brain?

What? Other than the article that I quoted and CITED, the rest of the OP is my words and my words alone. Prove othewise or shut the fuck up you stupid little troll.

ewe cannot make me stfu.. can ewe? I know that chaps yer creamed corn ass.

 

[Listening]

A Consumer Protection Agency ?

What a strange idea.

Doesn't the right believe the market will take care of the crooks and liars.

I know, I do.

 

[occupied]

If Banks cannot make a living without cheating people then they have a bigger problem then regulation and increased oversight. Republicans need to restrain their kneejerk reaction to regulation because they are basically saying that a dishonest consumer credit industry built on Caveat Emptor is somehow better than one that people know they can trust as honest and accountable, it makes no sense.

 

[The Rabbi]

If Banks cannot make a living without cheating people then they have a bigger problem then regulation and increased oversight. Republicans need to restrain their kneejerk reaction to regulation because they are basically saying that a dishonest consumer credit industry built on Caveat Emptor is somehow better than one that people know they can trust as honest and accountable, it makes no sense.

We survived over 200 years without a Consumer Credit agency. Do you think banks were cheating people all that time and we've just figured it out now?

 

[occupied]

If Banks cannot make a living without cheating people then they have a bigger problem then regulation and increased oversight. Republicans need to restrain their kneejerk reaction to regulation because they are basically saying that a dishonest consumer credit industry built on Caveat Emptor is somehow better than one that people know they can trust as honest and accountable, it makes no sense.

We survived over 200 years without a Consumer Credit agency. Do you think banks were cheating people all that time and we've just figured it out now?

Ever tried to read a credit card contract? How about mortgage paperwork? No reason for them to be that complex other than to hide the gotchas.

 

[Listening]

If Banks cannot make a living without cheating people then they have a bigger problem then regulation and increased oversight. Republicans need to restrain their kneejerk reaction to regulation because they are basically saying that a dishonest consumer credit industry built on Caveat Emptor is somehow better than one that people know they can trust as honest and accountable, it makes no sense.

Never allow for the fact that consumers might have gotten lazy...and then screwed.

The oversight committees failed on FM/FM.....but our answer is to make up more of them.

So, yes, I am saying it is better to let the market correct itself.

A corallary to that would be that if you break the law and abuse consumer trust, you will rot in jail....or hang.

 

[Listening]

Ever tried to read a credit card contract? How about mortgage paperwork? No reason for them to be that complex other than to hide the gotchas.

The internet seems to be a good way to check on things.

If someone is hurt by a company....it is pretty easy to let others know.

If their contracts are crooked....it won't take long to figure it out.

Yes, I read my mortgage paperwork.....you don't ?

 

[occupied]

If Banks cannot make a living without cheating people then they have a bigger problem then regulation and increased oversight. Republicans need to restrain their kneejerk reaction to regulation because they are basically saying that a dishonest consumer credit industry built on Caveat Emptor is somehow better than one that people know they can trust as honest and accountable, it makes no sense.

Never allow for the fact that consumers might have gotten lazy...and then screwed.

The oversight committees failed on FM/FM.....but our answer is to make up more of them.

So, yes, I am saying it is better to let the market correct itself.

A corallary to that would be that if you break the law and abuse consumer trust, you will rot in jail....or hang.

Who would be the prosecuting authority on consumer credit fraud? Right now it is the FBI and they do not have a firm legal framework to prosecute banks for liars loans. It's time we had at least a mechanism to charge institutions for wrongdoing, right now we have almost nothing.

 

[Dot Com]

All they want to do is make the President look like he can't get anything done when, in fact, its their filibustering.

 

[The Rabbi]

If Banks cannot make a living without cheating people then they have a bigger problem then regulation and increased oversight. Republicans need to restrain their kneejerk reaction to regulation because they are basically saying that a dishonest consumer credit industry built on Caveat Emptor is somehow better than one that people know they can trust as honest and accountable, it makes no sense.

Never allow for the fact that consumers might have gotten lazy...and then screwed.

The oversight committees failed on FM/FM.....but our answer is to make up more of them.

So, yes, I am saying it is better to let the market correct itself.

A corallary to that would be that if you break the law and abuse consumer trust, you will rot in jail....or hang.

Who would be the prosecuting authority on consumer credit fraud? Right now it is the FBI and they do not have a firm legal framework to prosecute banks for liars loans. It's time we had at least a mechanism to charge institutions for wrongdoing, right now we have almost nothing.

No, there are many federal and state agencies that all prosecute. Plus private legal action in civil court, including class action suits.
Name any class action suits that resulted from credit card agreements?

 

[occupied]

Never allow for the fact that consumers might have gotten lazy...and then screwed.

The oversight committees failed on FM/FM.....but our answer is to make up more of them.

So, yes, I am saying it is better to let the market correct itself.

A corallary to that would be that if you break the law and abuse consumer trust, you will rot in jail....or hang.

Who would be the prosecuting authority on consumer credit fraud? Right now it is the FBI and they do not have a firm legal framework to prosecute banks for liars loans. It's time we had at least a mechanism to charge institutions for wrongdoing, right now we have almost nothing.

No, there are many federal and state agencies that all prosecute. Plus private legal action in civil court, including class action suits.
Name any class action suits that resulted from credit card agreements?

Smoke screen, name a downside to forcing banks to finally simplify their contracts.