Trump orders the CFPB to pause all activity including customer complaints

I agree. Peter Theil is more accountable than federal employees. That's why we need these Yarvin dick sucking tech entrepreneur billionaires to expose the corruption.

 

An aspect of the desire for control of everything from government to media for these tech billionaires now is the fake veneer of being "geniuses" is becoming exposed more and more where people no longer think people like Musk, Altman, Theil etc are actually geniuses who sit down and design rockets or advanced mathematical algorithms with their savant coding skills.

More and more people see these guys as just people who won the game of speculative economy (gambling) and I think that really does hurt them deep down inside.

At a certain point wealth doesn't improve your day to day standard of living. Trying to obtain even more wealth and power at their levels is just a symptom of their narcissism trying to cope with society not respecting them anymore.

 

Self deportation is like cutting your own dk off and eating it.

 

Hmm, apparently the 700M funding wouldn't have been a sore issue if the Fed was running profits like it had before instead of the running 200B shitpile it's in right now.

https://www.consumerfinancemonitor....-when-federal-reserve-system-is-losing-money/
https://patomak.com/2024/07/09/examining-the-new-debate-on-cfpb-funding/

Okay, so it looks like we're diving into a slightly more complicated issue: What happens to the CFPB's funding if the Federal Reserve (the Fed) starts losing money?

Let's break down the concerns raised in those articles like you're trying to understand some economic drama:

The Basic Problem:

• CFPB gets money from the Fed: We already know that the CFPB gets its main funding from the Federal Reserve.
• Fed is supposed to make money: The Fed usually makes money (profits) through things like interest on the bonds it holds. It then sends a lot of that money back to the U.S. Treasury.
• Fed is losing money NOW: But recently, the Fed has been losing money, mainly because it's paying a lot of interest to banks and other financial institutions.
• Uh oh... So, if the Fed is losing money, how can it still give money to the CFPB? That's the big question!

The Concern (Article Summaries): Both articles you linked are basically discussing the same legal and financial problem: Is it legal for the Fed to keep funding the CFPB when the Fed itself is operating at a loss?

Here's a breakdown of the key arguments, simplified:

1. Where does the money come from?
   • Normally, the Fed funds the CFPB out of its "profits" (earnings).
   • But now, the Fed is losing money. So, where is the money for the CFPB actually coming from?
   • Some argue that the Fed might be essentially borrowing money to fund the CFPB.
2. Is that legal?
   • The law (Dodd-Frank Act) says the CFPB gets its funding from the Fed.
   • But the law might not have specifically considered the scenario where the Fed is losing money.
   • Some legal experts are questioning whether the Fed has the authority to take money from elsewhere (potentially through a loan or assessment of the reserve banks) and then transfer it to the CFPB if it's not making profits.
3. Potential Consequences
   • Legal Challenges: If someone (like a financial company being investigated by the CFPB) can prove that the CFPB's funding is illegal because the Fed is losing money, they could challenge the CFPB's authority in court. This could throw the CFPB's actions into doubt.
   • CFPB's Future: If the courts rule against the CFPB, it could force Congress to change the way the CFPB is funded, which could have a big impact on its independence.
   • Uncertainty: The biggest immediate effect is uncertainty for the CFPB and the financial industry.

Think of it like this:
Imagine you have a lemonade stand (the Fed). You usually make money selling lemonade and give a portion of your profits to a local charity (the CFPB). But this summer, your lemonade stand is actually losing money (maybe the lemons are too expensive!). Can you still donate to the charity? Where does that money come from? Do you take out a loan to keep donating? Is that the right thing to do?That's the kind of debate happening with the CFPB and the Fed right now.

In Conclusion:
The articles are about whether the CFPB's funding is legal now that the Fed is losing money. It's a complicated legal and financial question, and it could have big consequences for the CFPB and the way it protects consumers. Basically, lawyers are arguing about the fine print!

 

That's the unresolved legal question.

I mean if every agency had access to unlimited funding by folding it into the Fed, then we can DOdGE a Yuge bullet.

 

Yup I doubt a tech venture capitalist consulting firm and a law firm that has clients that are charged with antitrust penalties are good arbiters of the debate regarding the legality of an entity that protects consumers from financial institutions and corporations.

 

Those two sources are the equivalent of a pack of wolves being consulted on the debate on how to maximize security of a sheep pen.

 

Did he get in on the meme coins from the First Couple?

Hey @Commodore did you get any money out of the meme coins?

 

lol ok

Fed Society would be less pleased with their goons if the Supreme Court "resolved it" the way you think they did.

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/the-fed-still-can-t-legally-fund-the-cfpb
The Fed Still Can’t Legally Fund the CFPB

The funding scheme for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has been a source of controversy since its creation by the Dodd-Frank Act. The Supreme Court’s recent decision affirmed the constitutionality of “allowing the Bureau to draw money from the earnings of the Federal Reserve System.”

The Court’s decision has a fatal problem: while the Dodd-Frank Act funds the CFPB from the Fed’s earnings, today there are no Fed earnings. The Fed is losing money at the rate of more than $1 billion per week and has not had a penny of earnings since September 2022; it has instead accumulated the staggering sum of $172 billion in cash losses.

Section 1017 of the Dodd-Frank Act provides:
—Each year… the Board of Governors shall transfer to the Bureau from the combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System, the amount determined by the [CFPB] Director to be reasonably necessary . . . . [emphasis added]
​

The Fed stopped sending distributions of its earnings to the U.S. Treasury in September 2022 because it had no earnings to distribute. It should have stopped sending payments to the CFPB at the same time for the same reason. Sending nonexistent earnings to the CFPB violates the clear language of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Under standard accounting rules, the Fed has negative retained earnings, negative capital, and is technically insolvent. Today, the Fed borrows to cover its own and the CFPB’s expenses, primarily in the form of member bank deposits. Under the provisions of the Federal Reserve Act, these deposits are unsecured obligations of the 12 individual privately owned Federal Reserve Banks and are not guaranteed by the federal government. The Reserve bank deposits used to fund the CFPB are neither “public money” nor “drawn from the Treasury.”

Under current conditions—conditions that the framers of the Dodd-Frank Act never imagined possible—Fed payments to the CFPB conflict with the clear provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and the Federal Reserve Act. As long as the Fed continues to suffer operating losses, the CFPB is not being funded with Federal Reserve earnings or “public money drawn from the Treasury.”

​

You are technically correct in the sense that the issue "isn't a problem" because Vought unilaterally stopped it in its tracks, but it'd still be a problem in a Dem admin if the Fed is still running paper losses.

I actually support the CFPB, but if I brushed off every source I felt was repugnant or insufferable without taking in any of its merits, well....

 

So not only are you a lawyer and are now also an accounting tool? You Bidenomics shills act and sound all the same eh?

The wording sounds clear enough for a round of lawsuits if the nation didn't ride its fortunes on the Fed's policies.

I'll leave it to you split hairs since everything now is "determined by the Director" who's reaming it from the inside.

 

You absolutely should brush off sources coming from private entities that have self interest and conflict of interest.

You can find diversity of opinions from journalists and academics who study this stuff with no conflict of interest. If two sources that don't have conflict of interest, than sure diversify your sourcing. Diverse sourcing based on sincere ideological differences rather than finding diverse opinions based on monied self interest.

 

We wouldn’t need to anywhere close to 1929-1933 German conditions to see a massive civil unrest and a majority of voters to support a different candidate… the Great Depression wasn’t near Weimar Republic bad and it was enough… the exception would be Trump and MAGA controlling the media and vote counting to the point the American people are gas lit…. At that point, in the Western world the USA would be recognized as a dictatorship. Honestly, if Trump pushes and finds a way to remain in power beyond his term, the world would recognize the USA as no longer as free.

I cannot imagine the level of violence there would be in the USA with a 1930 German economy… all of the wealth accumulated by the middle, upper middle and even the wealthy - would be gone in the USA and Europe would be guaranteed to be in a depression as well…. An absolute nightmare.

 

Americans haven't lived in true hardship for over a century, and I believe we have largely turned off trying to figure out the answers to the biggest problems of our era...environmental devastation, unpayable debt, rebalancing income inequality, tech advancements outpacing social change, etc...

I have no idea how this turns out, but it's not as simple as Blue v Red state violence and something inherently more visceral.

I don't believe Trump would remain in power beyond his term unless the opposition floats a campaign promise of litigating the **** out of him again. He has enough surrogates to prop him up after retiring, but you never know. Maybe he makes Jr VP or something.