Posted on 01/05/2012 10:25:30 AM PST by Qbert
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — One day after being appointed through a controversial presidential maneuver, the new head of a consumer watchdog agency announced he is launching a program immediately to supervise a broad new swath of businesses including payday lenders, private student lenders and local mortgage lenders.
“We will begin dealing face-to-face with payday lenders, mortgage servicers, mortgage originators, private student lenders, and other firms that often compete with banks but have largely escaped any meaningful federal oversight,” said Richard Cordray, the newly appointed chief of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
[Snip]
Any legal challenge to the Obama appointment is likely to come from one of the businesses coming under new scrutiny, which could claim the CFPB doesn’t have the legal authority to regulate them.
Senate Republicans had been refusing to approve Cordray on grounds that the agency was too powerful, structurally flawed and lacked accountability to Congress.
Until Cordray was approved, no regulator had oversight authority over a large cross-section of the consumer-credit-product industry known as “non-banks,” which, in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis, escaped regulation of any sort.
These nonbank firms include payday lenders — which offer cash loans at steep fees to typically low-income individuals — mortgage-modification consultants and smaller state and local mortgage brokers, many of which originated “toxic” subprime mortgages that set the stage for the crisis of 2008.
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
"These nonbank firms include payday lenders — which offer cash loans at steep fees to typically low-income individuals — mortgage-modification consultants and smaller state and local mortgage brokers, many of which originated “toxic” subprime mortgages that set the stage for the crisis of 2008."
Fannie, Freddie, Goldman Sachs, the Fed, home free...
When the credit guys have the CFPB visit, are they going to tell them to get the **** out of their business?
I would.
But then what happens?
You can thank Frank/Dodd for this.
Payday lenders will just shut off lending to Obama voters..who will then turn to real loan sharks and the mob. Guess that’s what they want. As for the sub-prime lenders..well they are still Fannie and Freddie..since they do almost all the mortgage lending and are still trying to get Obama voters into houses they can’t afford.
I would.
But then what happens?
Well it essentially looks like that is what has to happen to get a legal challenge...
From the Story:
Any legal challenge to the Obama appointment is likely to come from one of the businesses coming under new scrutiny, which could claim the CFPB doesn’t have the legal authority to regulate them.
So essentially, the CFPB issues some sort of regulation. Business ignores it, and tells the CFPB to get the **** out of their business because they can't issue regulations due to the fact their head was unconstitutionally appointed. Then both parties goes to court and a judge decides if CFPB has a legitamate agency head or not.
Pretty much describes Obama too.
You and Obama escaped meaningful federal oversight for your appointment.
And, as an employee of a mortgage broker, I can attest to the choking federal oversight that's been implemented against us for years now.
Maybe these guys can help me with Congress and their IRS SWAT team? Timmy G is out sticking me with all sorts of predatory borrowing.
The payday lenders now have standing to sue...
I want to hear speeches and TV and radio interviews from NH and SC calling Obama a rogue president for this extra-constitutional appointment. It’s really easy to put into a 30-second ad, also. Hammer Obama about this. It’s a winner.
I can’t imagine what this is going to do to compliance costs for these companies.
Same old game here, I guess: create a “crisis”, eventually force them into bankruptcy and then stomp the floor about how they all need to be nationalized.
And beyond a few proforma words, where are McConnell and Boehner??? The GOP lacks the will, and maybe the desire, to fight.
Those supplying private capital to people are a threat to the goal of greater government control and ultimately enforcing "equality" of condition throughout the American people.
The Left wants to consolidate all lending through either the government itself, entities like Fannie/Freddie, or the big banks (which for policy purposes are extensions of the government).
The sad part of this is that republicans and conservatives would support common-sense oversite of these businesses. That’s why the democrats instead put together this fatally flawed organization that has no accountability and no method for congress to control appropriations — so the Republicans would have no choice but to oppose it.
The democrats don’t care if it works, just that they can look like the saviors of the little people while republicans look like the defenders of the greedy.
This is in part because republicans are so bad at messaging, and in part because I’m sure there is a part of the conservative movement that DOES think any regulation like this is uncalled for, and therefore would bitterly oppose the common-sense passage of legislation that could deal more reasonably with the issue. When you refuse to compromise in any way, shape, or form, your opponent gets blame, credit, and full control over what happens, and if there is something to be gained from it, you might lose the fight, the war, and the hearts of the people.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see if republicans can make the reasonable arguments that this agency is unconstitutional, that congressional oversight is a NECESARY component of good government and good regulation, and that regardless, the president can’t simply act like a king even in the pursuit of “good” — since every king thinks they are acting for good, at least at first.
Hugo Chavez is proud of his fellow traveler. Who needs a constitution?
"This is in part because republicans are so bad at messaging, and in part because I’m sure there is a part of the conservative movement that DOES think any regulation like this is uncalled for, and therefore would bitterly oppose the common-sense passage of legislation that could deal more reasonably with the issue. When you refuse to compromise in any way, shape, or form..."
I completely agree with your point about messaging, but as to your second point, what do you want them to "compromise" on? Bush argued for years- 17 times in 2008 alone- that the GSE's had massive risks that would decimate the economy... and the Dems in Congress refused to compromise and do anything about it.
If that dumb African can just appoint this bozo because “we cant wait”, then the House should deem any bill they pass de facto approved by the Senate and signed in by the president in absentia.
Just tell the press that we couldn’t wait.
Is this something that the Supreme Court gets involved in?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.