3 ms·
this was not about protecting consumers but instead about protecting the interest of trial lawyers who saw their money slush fund about to dry up. this is a gro
by Shivetya 9y ago
this was not about protecting consumers but instead about protecting the interest of trial lawyers who saw their money slush fund about to dry up. this is a group that notoriously donates to one party over another and exerts incredible control over that party. this rule would have done far more than just smack financial institutions as it was only a first move by the bureau which operates too far outside of what should have been permitted.
This was a law masquerading as a regulation and it needs to a law passed by Congress and not some out of control government agency who reports to no one. Go read up on this construct, it was an attempt to prevent normal government checks and balances from affecting it. Its chief is not subject to anyone, there are strict rules to prevent their removal, their funding is not from Congress but instead the Federal Reserve. Even the Fed cannot control the spending of this agency which can reach 12% of the Fed's budget; meaning nearly half a billion dollars to an unaccountable agency.
So while the law was good it is the agency affecting it that is the true issue and this agency needs to be put back into an accountable structure like all Federal Agencies. This was a pure partisan attempt to create an agency and staff it in a particular way to prevent debate and review.
- freeone3000 9y agoSo instead of an unaccountable government agency, your only option for redress is an arbiter that the company you're complaining against hired. "Unaccountable" is another word for "provably uninfluenced". Arbitration is provably influenced. (For your other points: "rich" trial lawyers that make, on average, less than software developers? "partisan" isn't the dirty word you think it is, ideas should be judged on merits regardless of source. Funding from the fed reserve is actually fairly brilliant, considering the continual issues with passing a budget in congress.)
- nerdponx 9y ago“Unaccountable" is another word for "provably uninfluenced" What? No. “Unaccountable” means “can’t hold them accountable for their actions”.
- freeone3000 9y agoYes, that is the literal meaning of the word. However, when a government holds an agency "accountable", it is exerting influence over it. "Accountable" agencies have their effectiveness swing wildly depending on the current governing party's whims. "Unaccountable" agencies, like the Federal Reserve and the United States Supreme Court, carry on doing what they do regardless of whatever nonsense Congress is doing this week.
- jartelt 9y agoConsidering that congress has shown that they care more about campaigning and raising money than passing legislation that protects average citizens, I love having an independent CFPB watching (or at least trying to watch) out for me.