Should really be "at least 400 million".

Warhammer 400M.

He is not ending the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That may be how you and the NYT frame it "a government agency he would probably shut down if he could" but what he called for was a reigning in of their jurisdiction.

Elizabeth Warren should have been a little more diligent in her pet project. When it was setup it should have been given oversight. Instead, they have been found to direct their fines into a slush fund with no oversight that ended up going to Democrat think tanks and media production companies.

When it was setup it should have been given oversight.

So by oversight, you mean congressionally attack the agency in a partisan manner when it does anything perceived to benefit the side you're not on? What Republican groups came forward to educate the public (making them eligible for the funds that were collected). According to your link, it wasn't that Republicans were stiffed or denied equal access, it's the simple fact that democratic agencies got funds AT ALL.

reigning in of their jurisdiction.

Uh, He revised the CFPB mission statement to undermine its primary focus.

He cut his own agency’s funding. To 0.

He cut the enforcement powers of the agency. Do you want non-compliance? Because that's how you get non-compliance.

But you're right, he's not killing the institution from within. I'm sure the best and brightest people would want to work there. Seems like such a stable place.

Man, these headlines. "Gutting" the CFPB's mission statement. It's not even an appropriate verb. He added to the mission statement:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 21st century agency that helps consumer finance markets work by regularly identifying and addressing outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations; by making rules more effective; by consistently enforcing federal consumer financial law; and by empowering consumers to take more control over their economic lives.

I don't see how anyone could take issue with those additions. Unless of course you really wanted this shiny new bureaucracy to have carte blanche to just do whatever it wanted to any business because business is evil. Then I remember the Democratic party's new Communist flavor and I guess that makes it clear.

And as far as cutting funding; in his letter to the Fed he noted that the agency had ample funds on reserve (from the slush fund) to operate without requiring additional funding for the year. So he requested $0. That's a framing error on your part there.

I can't disagree with anything he did. I am wholeheartedly in support of laws written, passed, and enforced by appointed law enforcement. Laws have representative democracy behind them. That means they are derived from the people and are subject to the people. But I will never support the fiat regulation of bureaucracies. With them you move towards autocratic government which is a great threat to liberty. While they are ostensibly appointed by democratic bodies they take on a life and culture of their own. Scaling them back is what Trump ran on and it's good to see him living up to his campaign promises.

The same way as adding “We will show them our peaceful ways, through force!” doesn’t add ‘anything’ to a mission statement.

The agency was created to stop what happened in 2008. You were alive or activated during that time. Implying that it somehow hurt us to impose regulations on the obviously overzealous banking industry is insane.

Business is not evil inherently, it CAN BE evil. You will admit this.

Running ENTIRELY on reserve funds means no hiring, no wage increases, and no possible oversight in cost overruns. Non-government agencies would go out of business. Oh, but ‘gutting’ is a word you can’t handle, I apologize.

You can’t disagree. One would not expect you do so. APPOINTED law enforcement even SOUNDS like a better idea than law enforcement that has experience, knowledge, or the ability to account for the representive laws surrounding them.

Hitler ran on scaling back the Jews. Promises kept, I guess, according to you. (The point being, promising racist or classist policies doesn’t make you a better person for ‘following through’ on them)

Not exactly. If that was why it was created we would have put an end to CDOs and mortgage backed securities. Apparently with all the new regulations and creations of new bureaucracies we decided that the key fault of the financial system was to be left in place.

One of it's ostensible goals was to reign in predatory lending practices such as payday loans. I watched a very interesting documentary the other day Dirty Money which told the story of one very shady short term loan sharks that made my jaw drop. The issue there though was that there were in fact plenty of laws to stop it but the company had found loopholes. Finally after enough complaints they were brought to court and stopped. I didn't hear anything about the CFPB in it; it was normal channels.

Really? Godwin's law. C'mon dude we were actually having a discussion. /thread

The political will to end them has to be there along with the votes. I'm going to give you two guesses as to which party won't cooperate on regulating banks. The same party has repeatedly tried to roll back the protections that were put into place to prevent the subprime mortgage crisis from happening again.

It's almost like someone is undermining the CFPB when they try to stop predatory payday loan practices. But who?

I apologize, it was late and I didn't want to research some other person that we could agree on that 'follow through' does not ostensibly mean 'good idea'.

.