The out of control CFPB


How about we direct the educational system in this country, that happens to be controlled by Democrat unions, to not issue high school diplomas to anyone who can’t pass a test composed of basic principles of consumerism?

Substitute that for the existing make work program that answers to no one.


Said another way…


If you consider the creation of the FED to be an abrogation of congressional responsibility, do you think that any of the responsibilities delegated to it by congress going forward are capable of being legitimate?

We seem to have the reverse with most other federal agencies… supposedly started with good intent and the approval of congress, they have taken on a life of their own.


Most of the people that work the federal government are unelected. What’s the point? The FED was created in secrecy to fleece Americans whereas the CFPB was created in the open by the CPA to protect Americans. Stop comparing the two institutions.


More fake facts from Johnny.

Big secret took a year of debate.

From December 1912 to December 1913, the Glass-Willis proposal was hotly debated, molded and reshaped. By December 23, 1913, when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law, it stood as a classic example of compromise—a decentralized central bank that balanced the competing interests of private banks and populist sentiment.



It wasn’t a secret, it was debated for a year.

From December 1912 to December 1913, the Glass-Willis proposal was hotly debated, molded and reshaped. By December 23, 1913, when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law, it stood as a classic example of compromise—a decentralized central bank that balanced the competing interests of private banks and populist sentiment.

The washington post, are you kidding me???

From your government:

And of course you forget:
Congress has the power to amend the Federal Reserve Act

Which it has several times yet they still remain. One would think if it were so bad the congress wold modify or end it. Yet they do not so it must be like welfare, wonderful.

Perhaps you refer to how the act was passed which was much like the ACA.

But unlike the ACA, it was a bipartisan law.

In March 1913 the Democratic Senate created its first Banking and Currency Committee, chaired by Oklahoma senator Robert D. Owen. The House Banking Committee was chaired by Virginia representative (and future senator) Carter Glass. In June President Wilson formally proposed creation of a government-run Federal Reserve system. The House took up the issue first and passed a bill in September, after which the Senate Banking committee began holding hearings.

By December the Senate was debating and voting on its version of the bill. When all of the Senate Republicans voted for a substitute measure, Senate Democrats opted to make the banking and currency bill a “party question.” At that time, the Democratic Conference had a “binding caucus” rule, by which whenever two-thirds of the conference voted in favor of a bill, all of its members agreed to support it and not to offer amendments on the floor. The Senate therefore passed the Federal Reserve Act by an almost party-line vote. The bill then went to a conference committee, which forged the necessary compromises and reported it back on December 22, when it was accepted by the House.

On December 23, 1913, the Senate adopted the conference report by a vote of 43 to 25, with every Democrat present voting for the measure and all but four Republicans voting against it. (Twenty-seven senators were “paired” or chose not to vote.) Most senators immediately rushed to Union Station to catch trains home for the holidays, while the chief sponsors went to the White House. President Wilson signed the Glass-Owens Act at 6:00 p.m. He used four pens, then gave one to each of the leading sponsors. Wilson commented that he was not accustomed to using a series of pens. The Democratic whip, Senator J. Hamilton Lewis of Illinois, responded, “The bill itself was made in installments, Mr. President.” “Yes,” said Wilson, “and very slowly.” The Oval Office filled with cheers for what became the most lasting legislative accomplishment of the Wilson administration.

Oh wait that progressive president Wilson signed the bill.

Why are you so pissed?
Democrats sponsored it, passed it and a progressive signed i.


Now that’s hilarious. Care to prove that the 1600 employees there are democrats??


Yes indeed. The protections removed by Glass Steagall led to the Great Recession at the close of the Bush administration, and the CPA is the response to bring consumer protections back. It’s non partisan and intends to protect all Americans.


Of the 594 donations listed in the database OpenSecrets, ONE person donated $1,000 to Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney in 2012. The other 593 went to a variety of Democrats with the most going to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama:

$46,611 to Hillary Rodham Clinton.
$13,190 to Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
$19,988 to President Obama.
$10,075 to Democratic campaign committees.
$1,129 to Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Looks like there is at last 1 republican in the mix. If you use percentages which leftist shills are so proud of, there are approximately 3 republicans working for the CFPB.


Well, the conception and design was indeed a middle of the night Jekyll island special and lobby interest were no less prevalent than they are now. The designers of the FED wanted control of the currency and contrary to any debate congress had over its establishment, the constitution really wasn’t part of the consideration…


Its also non accountable…except by a congress that couldn’t put find its butt with both hands…


As the constitution isn’t considered with most legislation. The attitude, pass a law let the courts sort it out lik the ACA. Sometimes thy get it right sometimes they don’t.


I think for the most part, barring Hamiltons national bank, the Constitution was mostly front and center until… well, about the time Wilson took office…and progressives have been on a roll every since…


The other day, a commenter asked me to explain why I thought the repeal of much of the Glass-Steagall Act by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 did not contribute significantly to the occurrence of the Great Recession. I had excised that discussion from the article on the ground that I thought it interfered with the real point of the article, which had to do with what the new French president, M. Hollande, might want to accomplish in the banking sector.

What Glass-Steagall Said

What was Glass-Steagall? It was four sections of the Banking Act of 1933: Sections 16, 20, 21 and 32.

Section 16, codified as paragraph seventh of section 24 of the National Bank Act, applied solely to national banks and Federal Reserve System members. It said two things: One, such banks could invest only in debt securities (no equities)-and only in such securities that were authorized by the Comptroller of the Currency, which is the supervisor of national banks. Securities authorized by the Comptroller were defined as “investment securities”, and in practice the Comptroller restricted such securities to investment grade securities. Two, no such bank (national bank or Federal Reserve member bank) could (except for investment securities as defined above) deal in securities or stock for its own account, but could do so solely upon the order of and for the account of customers.

Section 20 said that no member bank of the Federal Reserve System (which includes all national banks) could affiliate in any way with a firm engaged in securities underwriting.

Section 21 applies to any institution that accepts “deposits”. It prohibits any such institution from underwriting securities. [Section 21 has not been repealed. Bank holding companies underwrite through non-bank affiliates.]

Section 32 prohibited interlocking directorships between member banks and underwriters.

Interpreting Glass-Steagall

Of course there were court cases, regulations and commentary that interpreted these provisions. Beginning in the early 1980s, the regulations and administrative interpretations carved out significant exceptions to what many had thought were the prohibitions of Glass-Steagall. These interpretations permitted securities brokerage operations for clients and even permitted limited underwriting of securities by what became known as “Section 20 affiliates”. But it was not until the creation of CitiGroup in the late 1990s that the more fundamental strictures of Section 20 were challenged, resulting in the passage Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999 that more or less repealed Section 20.

The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was at most a minor contributor to the financial crisis. At the heart of the 2008 crisis was nearly $5 trillion worth of basically worthless mortgage loans, among other factors. Although the repeal allowed for much bigger banks, it can’t be blamed for the crisis.

Since non-bank lenders originated the overwhelming majority of subprime mortgages, and the buyers of over half of them in the 10 years leading up to the 2008 crisis were not banks – commercial or investment – but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pointing the finger at this particular banking regulation is not warranted.

Some argue that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 caused the financial crisis because banks were no longer prevented from operating as both commercial and investment banks, and repeal allowed banks to become substantially larger, or “too big to fail.” However, the crisis would likely have happened even without the Glass-Steagall repeal.

Clinton said, “There’s not a single, solitary example that” signing the bill to end Glass-Steagall “had anything to do with the financial crash.”

By focusing on the bill that officially repealed Glass-Steagall, Clinton’s statement ignores the fact that the demise of Glass-Steagall took place over decades, amid a deregulatory push in which the Clinton administration played a role. By the time the law to repeal hit his desk, Glass-Steagall had been whittled down so much that it wasn’t very meaningful. It’s a matter of debate how much of a role the overall demise of Glass-Steagall had in causing the financial crisis, but we couldn’t find any economists who argue that the regulation was the sole linchpin keeping the financial system stable until its official repeal in 1999. Overall, we rate Clinton’s claim Mostly True.

From your friends at politifact


We have republican hypocrites too don’t you know.


We know that and we are positioning ourselves to deal with it… we are deep in the liberal quagmire… it will be messy and perhaps require some time but it will get worked out in the end…


Perhaps this is the biggest reason for liberal support for the CFPB… slush funds are always nice…


CFPB doing its job good again. Even Mulvaney praised them. Only problem is, why isn’t anybody going to prison???

In September, the CFPB fined the nation’s third largest bank for secretly opening new accounts for customers, often charging them fees for products they never ordered or agreed to. The agency found that the illegal sales practices began in 2011.


I’m thinkin that if banks were taken to task by the FED, the SEC and the FDIC 10 years ago, they would be much more forthright in their dealings with customers because a few of the more … ‘creative’ ones would be out of business…