Reddit has become a hysterical left-wing echo chamber.
You cannot visit any default sub reddit without being bombarded with hyper-partisan conspiracy theories about politics and economic issues.
Why is it flagged? I would guess that it's because it's far more politics than tech, and many of us are getting really tired of political discussions.
Go look at new and do the percentage yourself.
The will of the people is an impediment to businessmen wanting to scam people.
CFPB is simply not delivering on its purpose, but wasting $700 milly per year just for some bureacrats to sit on their asses and do nothing
In Europe, we call that an unemployment mitigation programme. Well, we don't call it that, but that's what it is.
These all look like important things to enforce?
We can live with one less (useless) regulator and overall regulation can be more unified and streamlined.
Just ask yourself: How other countries manage to survive without the CFPB, and live just fine ?????
> Backers of the idea argued that because several federal agencies were regulating the consumer banking system, there were gaps in oversight that left consumers vulnerable or confused. The new agency would consolidate those regulatory responsibilities in one place.
I assume they have something equivalent. I also know consumer banking at least works differently in Africa and Europe then it does in the US. IIRC bank accounts are protected and accessed differently
Your other posts on this thread seem emotional, angry and aggressive, so I'm just not going to bother engaging anymore
They only increase cost of doing business and add overhead on the consumer (one more document to sign that nobody reads, when closing a loan).
I really dont understand what these 1700 people accomplish productive every day to justify the agency's existence.
If they are doing something manual, this ought to be automated. If they are manually enforcing something - this ought to be encoded in laws and should not require post-hoc enforcement.
"Supporters highlight its work to penalize large companies, including banks, for allegedly mistreating clients — with the bureau claiming in 2023 that it had restored $17.5 billion to Americans over the previous 12 years “in the form of monetary compensation, principal reductions, canceled debts, and other consumer relief.”
Last year, the CFPB finalized a rule capping credit card late payment fees at $8 — down from an average of $32 — which it estimated would save consumers $14 billion per year."
Considering the US citizens their shareholders, I would like to see how many private organisations of that size have such an impact in just 12 years.
But yeah, it's a waste, let's shut it down.
I highly doubt $14 bln is accurate, but even if it is, its only 70% over their carrying cost.
as a hiring manager in private sector, in order to justify headcount, the benefit must exceed 3x the carrying cost of an employee.
to hire $100k person, I must prove $300k benefit to the company at very least, and 5x benefit is more appreciated by management.
doesnt look like a good return at all honestly
1. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R48295/2Maybe before you determine, without evidence, that an agency is "useless", you should be honest and dive into the details before making such a foolish statement.
The agencies offered in the parent comment don’t do the work the CFPB does, nor address the same regulatory enforcement.
The only actors “harmed” by the CFPB are the actors attempting to exploit Americans.
But by all means my fellow Americans, let’s see what happens when we remove the vanguard of the consumer protections instituted as a result of the subprime mortgage crisis. That’ll ultimately be so great for the economy.
You can only throw such statement into the world if you would know what it would look like without the CFPB.
People outside America also use banks and loans and credit cards
2. Being under the Federal Reserve, it is not part of the government despite being ostensibly so. Accountability is thus questionable at best.
3. Small(er) government(?) is good government. Leaner budget is better budget. Less bureaucracy is good bureaucracy.
We will be fine without them.
Just ask yourself: How other countries manage to survive without the CFPB, and live just fine ?????
CFPB tends to go after those who rip off the less affluent. Not a HN constituency.
We got along great for almost 200 years without the DEA and they have a much larger budget. Hasn't materially improved anyone's life, or do you know someone who was better off from their action? Go after them first.
it is a valid question how DEA was unable to prevent opioid epidemic by Sackler family, and the current fentanyl epidemic, and I'm sure the effectiveness question will be raised.
while we are discussing DEA, I wanted to highlight CIA whistleblower Kiriakou's interview ( https://youtu.be/yaoTdbGbU1c?t=187 )
Afghanistan was net food exporter, but shortly after USA occupation, Afghanistan produces 93% of world's heroine, and DoD encouraged opium production because heroine was exported to geopolitical adversaries (Russia and Iran).
and DEA even shut down investigation by the CIA.
Very big questions are starting to arise
1. could be automated completely, removing the need for human cost in the process
2. should be created for all other industries as well, not only finance consumers
Automation fails. A lot. There will always be a need for humans to address at least some of these cases.
> 2. should be created for all other industries as well, not only finance consumers
Adding to the list of things the government doesn't do (removal of the CFPB without an alternative) doesn't achieve this.
The FTC still directs consumers to the CFPB. Might want to call Russ and let him know.
Just fire 90% of these thousands of lawyers with 500k salaries and replace remaining 10% with engineers who will create a system on autopilot.
There is really no valid argument against materially improving government efficiency
and if you say anything to the contrary about LLMs not being fully baked enough for this undertaking, they will immediately frame it like you're against the entire endeavor. they hate nuance.
Even if you agree with the goals, the methods are not just bad... they're illegal, ineffective, and likely to be very expensive in the long run. They should have just done it properly.
Congress authorizes appropriations for new expenses (so that executive branch could not authorize their own expenses at taxpayer cost), but not cost cutting within executive branch
Article I, Section 9 grants Congress the power of the purse to approve spending and article II Section 3 says that the president must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". That's all of the authority over the budget the president has: the ability to faithfully execute the spending Congress approved or to veto the bill when it's passed.
Further, the matter has been to the supreme court TWICE already. First during Nixon's reign in the 70's (Nixon lost), then later under Clinton during the line-item veto mess. Clinton also lost, rightfully.
The worst part of all of this is that I know these things and I'm NOT someone who swore to uphold the constitution.
Lies.
> 2. Being under the Federal Reserve, it is not part of the government despite being ostensibly so. Accountability is thus questionable at best.
FUD.
> 3. Small(er) government(?) is good government. Leaner budget is better budget. Less bureaucracy is good bureaucracy.
Nonsensical, utopian libertarianism talking points that don't take into consideration specifics, just blanket judgements without evidence or understanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_...
>The agency was originally proposed in 2007 by Elizabeth Warren while she was a law professor. The CFPB's creation was authorized by the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, whose passage in 2010 was a legislative response to the financial crisis of 2007–08 and the subsequent Great Recession and is an independent bureau within the Federal Reserve.
>The CFPB formally began operation on July 21, 2011.
In Trump's immortal word: Wrong.
>FUD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve#Accountability
>Nonsensical, utopian libertarianism talking points that don't take into consideration specifics, just blanket judgements without evidence or understanding.
Honestly Margaret, I don't give a damn.
People here are trying to convince me that it's perfectly fine to have wanton waste and fraud and we should accept it because it's such a Miniscule(tm) part of the budget. Miniscule(tm) as in millions and billions of dollars. Tax dollars. I guess a multi millionaire or even a billionaire by modern standards is a pauper today, okay.
And they say that for what? Because they want to scream Orange Man and Rocket Man X are bad.
What the hell is wrong with you people. Seriously and sincerely. With how much y'all hate Trump I thought we at least shared a common hatred for fraud.
The mental gymnastics many of the people here go through to justify their screeching is frankly appalling[1][2][3].
Hate Trump and Musk if you want because that's frankly none of my business, but if you are serious about accepting wanton waste and especially fraud of people's tax dollars I will not have any respect for you and your lack of civility.
If you are serious that millions and billions of dollars is an insignificant sum of money, I will question your grasp upon common sense and reality.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43004138
The reasons for dismantling are numerous, but mainly:
1. Waste (all budget is basically salaries for overpaid bureacrats)
2. Lack of oversight due to unusual appropriation scheme
3. Scope creep from the original mandate - bureacrats keep reinventing new things to expand their influence
Fortunately payroll is public data! We can look at their pay bands and employee salaries.
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/careers/pay-scales/
And data around who made what
> In 2023 the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) reported 1,282 employees making more than $100,000 per year; the average salary was $134,723. The highest reported pay for the federal agency was $259,500 for Janis Pappalardo, Miscellaneous Administration and Program. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in 2023 ranked 32nd in the nation among highest paying federal agencies and 43rd in the nation for overall highest paying employers.
https://openpayrolls.com/rank/highest-paid-employees/consume...
You may still think they're overpaid, but they're vastly under the 250k per head you estimated.
I am not interested in detailed paychecks, as I am not evaluating efficiency of individual employees. Just the department's efficiency in general, thats why it makes sense to divide totals as this is what taxpayer is paying in the end
> which ~ 250k/head, which is bigger than the salary of the Speaker of the House.
> 250k average pay is unheard of in the federal government
As the data I linked, their salary amounts is on the lower end of federal agencies. I get you don't think they're worth the cost, but you can't claim they're radically overpaid compared to other federal agencies. The data just does not back up that claim.
The average employee salary for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in 2023 was $134,723. This is 87.8 percent higher than the national average for government employees and 74.7 percent higher than other federal agencies.
ok maybe they are not all overpaid, but the agency is over bloated for its mission and what could be accomplished with the resources they are using
" 1. Waste (all budget is basically salaries for overpaid bureacrats)"
Bureaucrats are all just overpaid waste in your anarchist world view?
Its basically illegal from the Constitutional point of view.
Plus the agency really has not delivered enough to justify its existence and its spend
just inject this directly into my veins
why is this not happening?
They will both play their parts. The good cop side will act outraged, but they will ultimately go along with it.