Trump's Policies Part 2

[Huckleberry]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1889437308862275608

Fowler: Here’s what the CFPB has done: limited overdraft fees, limited credit cate late fees, removed medical debt from credit reports, gone after banks who have taken advantage of people

Gutfeld: America voted for this

Fowler: No, they didn’t. Trump didn’t go to the American people and say I want to raise your overdraft fees.


The idea that Trump's election means that America voted for anything he wants to do is as stupid as they come. How dumb does the WH and FoxNews (Trump's mouthpiece) think people are?

 

[Huckleberry]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1889455752894464305

Punishing journalists for not adopting state-mandated terminology is an alarming attack on press freedom. That's viewpoint discrimination, and it's unconstitutional.

President Trump has the authority to change how the U.S. government refers to the Gulf. But he cannot punish a news organization for using another term. The role of our free press is to hold those in power accountable, not to act as their mouthpiece. Any government efforts to erode this fundamental freedom deserve condemnation.

 

[Huckleberry]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1889380980214960375

While meeting with the King of Jordan and a visibly uncomfortable Rubio today, Trump now changes his position from yesterday and says the US is not going to buy Gaza, we are just going to take it: “We’re gonna take it, we’re gonna hold it, we’re gonna cherish it.”

 

[jthomas666]

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/10/g-s1-47817/trump-pardon-rod-blagojevich-illinois-corruption

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Tom Homan says the DOJ has identified the person leaking ICE raid info, and they’ll be criminally charged.

“Not only is this person going to lose their job, they’ll lose their pension, they're gonna go to jail.”

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1889333273920217408

 

[Bodhisattva]

The thing about the CFPB is that, while I certainly don't have a problem punishing entities who commit fraud, they have largely strayed into "we have to protect stupid people the consequences of their stupidity" activities. If someone pays their bills late or not at all, they deserve the fines and high interest credit card rates that come with pursuing a path of poor credit. I feel no sympathy for the proactively stupid.

 

[Huckleberry]

The thing about the CFPB is that, while I certainly don't have a problem punishing entities who commit fraud, they have largely strayed into "we have to protect stupid people the consequences of their stupidity" activities. If someone pays their bills late or not at all, they deserve the fines and high interest credit card rates that come with pursuing a path of poor credit. I feel no sympathy for the proactively stupid.

Do you favor any limits on the interest and fines? After all, sometimes events occur that cause even responsible people to have financial issues. Surely there’s a reasonable amount that can be agreed upon.

And “largely strayed” makes it sound like that was their primary mission. If you’d like, I can post numerous examples where corporations were fined for mistreating their customers and filing false documents, all in the name of profit.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Do you favor any limits on the interest and fines? After all, sometimes events occur that cause even responsible people to have financial issues. Surely there’s a reasonable amount that can be agreed upon.

And “largely strayed” makes it sound like that was their primary mission. If you’d like, I can post numerous examples where corporations were fined for mistreating their customers and filing false documents, all in the name of profit.

It's a nonissue for me. I haven't carried a credit card balance in maybe 20 years. And if in the future I forget to make the payment on time, that's on me. The interest and penalty would be what I earned. As it is, I am hypervigilant with my credit and have a perfect credit score and have access to virtually unlimited credit (that I'll never use). Conversely, I have a brother who has carried a cc balance his entire life and is often late in paying. His credit is trash, so his interest is sky high and always will be. Choices have consequences. You can't save people from themselves without hurting somebody else.

The interest offsets the risk the cc company has in shaky customers. The shaky customer may (eventually) never pay, so collecting a higher monthly payment (due to high interest) in the meantime mitigates the risk a bit. If the company were not allowed to do that, then they have two options. One, refuse to give the trash customer a cc. That's probably the best plan, but can you imagine the cries of "discrimination" that would follow? Two, everyone's interest would be higher, making the responsible customers who carry some debt pay higher rates and effectively subsidize the trash customers. (It's analogous to affordable housing laws, which only shift extra house cost to the middle class so the lower class can get a house they don't deserve. In the name of fairness.)

Again, this is not something that concerns me because I don't carry a balance, so whatever interest doesn't touch me.

When I lived in the DC area, I met many people who worked for the CFPB. One thing that seemed constant was their hostility to business as their default. These are the people who are offended by the concept of profit and think businesses exist to abuse the general public. The whole concept of free exchange is foreign to them. Punish fraud? Sure, no problem. Punish a business because a consumer is a moron? No. The attitude was in line with Al Sharpton, who has made millions by accusing every business of racism. Highlight real racism? Sure, no problem. Shaking down businesses by turning lose his minions (who always have a lot of free time on their hand so they can go protest) and mitigating fake claims of racism by extorting a pile of money? No. But it works over and over again.

 

[75thru79]

Do you favor any limits on the interest and fines? After all, sometimes events occur that cause even responsible people to have financial issues. Surely there’s a reasonable amount that can be agreed upon.

I'm pretty sure all states have usury laws that outlaw rates over a certain limit. How about we revisit those, and adjust as necessary instead of creating a whole new agency. Also, banks and other financial institutions have regulations coming out the hoo ha from all the other agencies. Why create the CFPB when we already have agencies in place to monitor this stuff. No, Elisabeth Warren wanted to have her own little private regulatory fiefdom. It's her legacy for the rest of us.

 

[dtgreg]

It's a nonissue for me. I haven't carried a credit card balance in maybe 20 years. And if in the future I forget to make the payment on time, that's on me. The interest and penalty would be what I earned. As it is, I am hypervigilant with my credit and have a perfect credit score and have access to virtually unlimited credit (that I'll never use). Conversely, I have a brother who has carried a cc balance his entire life and is often late in paying. His credit is trash, so his interest is sky high and always will be. Choices have consequences. You can't save people from themselves without hurting somebody else.

The interest offsets the risk the cc company has in shaky customers. The shaky customer may (eventually) never pay, so collecting a higher monthly payment (due to high interest) in the meantime mitigates the risk a bit. If the company were not allowed to do that, then they have two options. One, refuse to give the trash customer a cc. That's probably the best plan, but can you imagine the cries of "discrimination" that would follow? Two, everyone's interest would be higher, making the responsible customers who carry some debt pay higher rates and effectively subsidize the trash customers. (It's analogous to affordable housing laws, which only shift extra house cost to the middle class so the lower class can get a house they don't deserve. In the name of fairness.)

Again, this is not something that concerns me because I don't carry a balance, so whatever interest doesn't touch me.

When I lived in the DC area, I met many people who worked for the CFPB. One thing that seemed constant was their hostility to business as their default. These are the people who are offended by the concept of profit and think businesses exist to abuse the general public. The whole concept of free exchange is foreign to them. Punish fraud? Sure, no problem. Punish a business because a consumer is a moron? No. The attitude was in line with Al Sharpton, who has made millions by accusing every business of racism. Highlight real racism? Sure, no problem. Shaking down businesses by turning lose his minions (who always have a lot of free time on their hand so they can go protest) and mitigating fake claims of racism by extorting a pile of money? No. But it works over and over again.

Get back to me when the CEO of Bank of America does a day in jail.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/op...department-settlement-financial-fraud-leading

 

[Huckleberry]

It's a nonissue for me. I haven't carried a credit card balance in maybe 20 years. And if in the future I forget to make the payment on time, that's on me. The interest and penalty would be what I earned. As it is, I am hypervigilant with my credit and have a perfect credit score and have access to virtually unlimited credit (that I'll never use). Conversely, I have a brother who has carried a cc balance his entire life and is often late in paying. His credit is trash, so his interest is sky high and always will be. Choices have consequences. You can't save people from themselves without hurting somebody else.

The interest offsets the risk the cc company has in shaky customers. The shaky customer may (eventually) never pay, so collecting a higher monthly payment (due to high interest) in the meantime mitigates the risk a bit. If the company were not allowed to do that, then they have two options. One, refuse to give the trash customer a cc. That's probably the best plan, but can you imagine the cries of "discrimination" that would follow? Two, everyone's interest would be higher, making the responsible customers who carry some debt pay higher rates and effectively subsidize the trash customers. (It's analogous to affordable housing laws, which only shift extra house cost to the middle class so the lower class can get a house they don't deserve. In the name of fairness.)

Again, this is not something that concerns me because I don't carry a balance, so whatever interest doesn't touch me.

When I lived in the DC area, I met many people who worked for the CFPB. One thing that seemed constant was their hostility to business as their default. These are the people who are offended by the concept of profit and think businesses exist to abuse the general public. The whole concept of free exchange is foreign to them. Punish fraud? Sure, no problem. Punish a business because a consumer is a moron? No. The attitude was in line with Al Sharpton, who has made millions by accusing every business of racism. Highlight real racism? Sure, no problem. Shaking down businesses by turning lose his minions (who always have a lot of free time on their hand so they can go protest) and mitigating fake claims of racism by extorting a pile of money? No. But it works over and over again.

I get all of this and agree with most of it. I’m not a fan of credit card debt either and my credit rating reflects my life long efforts to pay my debts (CC, mortgage, or other) on time. Others aren’t as responsible (or perhaps as fortunate) as us and should pay a price for that. The issue is whether that price should cripple their ability to recover.

And businesses should be able to protect their interests when it comes to risk-taking. To what extent is the question.

I can’t answer to anecdotal evidence regarding those who staffed the agency, but I can say that if I’m looking to protect consumers, I’m not going to place people sympathetic to big business in charge. Considering the enormous influence corporations have in our government (regardless of party affiliation), I’ll not shed a tear if something happens to favor the little guy.

 

[Bodhisattva]

I get all of this and agree with most of it. I’m not a fan of credit card debt either and my credit rating reflects my life long efforts to pay my debts (CC, mortgage, or other) on time. Others aren’t as responsible (or perhaps as fortunate) as us and should pay a price for that. The issue is whether that price should cripple their ability to recover.

And businesses should be able to protect their interests when it comes to risk-taking. To what extent is the question.

I can’t answer to anecdotal evidence regarding those who staffed the agency, but I can say that if I’m looking to protect consumers, I’m not going to place people sympathetic to big business in charge. Considering the enormous influence corporations have in our government (regardless of party affiliation), I’ll not shed a tear if something happens to favor the little guy.

I don't want people hostile or favorably disposed to any business entity in charge of regulations. Government should be a neutral umpire ... and preferably competent. As @75thru79 pointed out, the CFPB is Whitey the Indian's pet project. She is openly hostile to the business community, and I have little doubt (reinforced in part by my anecdotal encounters with CFPB staff) that the CFPB will always try to find a way to rule against the business community. Even where businesses that have not yet drawn CFPB fire, I have little doubt that the cost of compliance is significant, which is just another cost that gets passed on to the consumer (all of us).

 

[Huckleberry]

I don't want people hostile or favorably disposed to any business entity in charge of regulations. Government should be a neutral umpire ... and preferably competent. As @75thru79 pointed out, the CFPB is Whitey the Indian's pet project. She is openly hostile to the business community, and I have little doubt (reinforced in part by my anecdotal encounters with CFPB staff) that the CFPB will always try to find a way to rule against the business community. Even where businesses that have not yet drawn CFPB fire, I have little doubt that the cost of compliance is significant, which is just another cost that gets passed on to the consumer (all of us).

Then let’s advocate for that. Certainly Trump could put some neutral people in charge rather than eliminate a source of needed source of consumer protection. Are we to trust banks and corporations to self-monitor themselves?

 

[4Q Basket Case]

The CFPB raises costs for people who pay their bills on time and don't overdraw their checking account. That's because they reduce the costs to people who don't pay their bills on time and overdraw their account.

You read that right. People who generally do the right financial thing foot the bill for those who are irresponsible.

That's because the CFPB doesn't reduce the costs that the financial institution incurs in servicing these risky customers. Really, they can't.

I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but banks don't incur losses when the delinquent loan or overdraft is charged off. It's Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and blessedly the CFPB has no control over that.

Banks incur the losses when the checking account overdraws to the tune of about 25% of the overdraft. They incur losses on the delinquent loans when the payment is missed and incur more losses as the loan becomes more and more delinquent.

Even if the specific loan or overdraft eventually gets paid in full, the bank incurs massive opportunity costs because they have to maintain equally outsized reserves on these assets and can't lend out the money. Plus, it's not like that's the only problem asset they had. Another one will inevitably take its place.

Banks, however, need regulation. Left to their own devices, they've shown time and again that they will slide down a nasty slippery slope at the bottom of which is a cesspool. They then spend several years swimming in its contents, get religion, and swear off what got them in the predicament. Only to repeat the cycle when the people who were there retire and the youngsters don't have the painful institutional memory.

There are and have been regulations in place for decades -- pushing a century now. Those regulations are plenty sufficient to allow the regulators to do their jobs properly. Thing is, the regulators are political animals too. They tend to be too lax in good economic times and too restrictive in recessions.

But the general public doesn't understand that and just wants a suit to pay for their misery. So when one or more banks do something stupid and it blows up in their faces, there's about a 99.9% chance that the regulations were in place to prevent it.....if the regulators hadn't been so lazy. But the regulators obviously can't admit that, so they scream that the solution is more regulation. When the real solution is for them to use the tools they've had forever and do their jobs before bad stuff happens.

The CFPB is incredibly counter-productive and should be abolished. The regulatory arms of the OCC, FDIC and Federal Reserve are massively redundant and should be consolidated into one entity. Yes it will be larger than any of the three, but the resulting single federal regulator would be materially smaller than the three are collectively.

Depositors and borrowers would be rewarded for doing the responsible thing. Irresponsible depositors and borrowers would pay the true cost of their behavior. On a net basis, government would shrink and efficiency would improve.

 

[Huckleberry]

The CFPB raises costs for people who pay their bills on time and don't overdraw their checking account. That's because they reduce the costs to people who don't pay their bills on time and overdraw their account.

You read that right. People who generally do the right financial thing foot the bill for those who are irresponsible.

That's because the CFPB doesn't reduce the costs that the financial institution incurs in servicing these risky customers. Really, they can't.

I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but banks don't incur losses when the delinquent loan or overdraft is charged off. It's Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and blessedly the CFPB has no control over that.

Banks incur the losses when the checking account overdraws to the tune of about 25% of the overdraft. They incur losses on the delinquent loans when the payment is missed and incur more losses as the loan becomes more and more delinquent.

Even if the specific loan or overdraft eventually gets paid in full, the bank incurs massive opportunity costs because they have to maintain equally outsized reserves on these assets and can't lend out the money. Plus, it's not like that's the only problem asset they had. Another one will inevitably take its place.

Banks, however, need regulation. Left to their own devices, they've shown time and again that they will slide down a nasty slippery slope at the bottom of which is a cesspool. They then spend several years swimming in its contents, get religion, and swear off what got them in the predicament. Only to repeat the cycle when the people who were there retire and the youngsters don't have the painful institutional memory.

There are and have been regulations in place for decades -- pushing a century now. Those regulations are plenty sufficient to allow the regulators to do their jobs properly. Thing is, the regulators are political animals too. They tend to be too lax in good economic times and too restrictive in recessions.

But the general public doesn't understand that and just wants a suit to pay for their misery. So when one or more banks do something stupid and it blows up in their faces, there's about a 99.9% chance that the regulations were in place to prevent it.....if the regulators hadn't been so lazy. But the regulators obviously can't admit that, so they scream that the solution is more regulation. When the real solution is for them to use the tools they've had forever and do their jobs before bad stuff happens.

The CFPB is incredibly counter-productive and should be abolished. The regulatory arms of the OCC, FDIC and Federal Reserve are massively redundant and should be consolidated into one entity. Yes it will be larger than any of the three, but the resulting single federal regulator would be materially smaller than the three are collectively.

Depositors and borrowers would be rewarded for doing the responsible thing. Irresponsible depositors and borrowers would pay the true cost of their behavior. On a net basis, government would shrink and efficiency would improve.

I don't want to pay for the irresponsibility of others, but I don't want their penalty to be inordinate either. And I certainly don't want financial institutions ignoring regulation for profit, then recovering on the government's dole while the responsible executives skate with huge severance packages.

So let's come up with a solution that protects the taxpayer/consumer. If your suggestion will cover those things, then I'm all for it.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Then let’s advocate for that. Certainly Trump could put some neutral people in charge rather than eliminate a source of needed source of consumer protection. Are we to trust banks and corporations to self-monitor themselves?

I'm pretty sure there's already a whole alphabet soup of government entities that regulate financial institutions and the private sector to protect consumers. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I am aware of how bureaucracies can never stay in their lane and love to expand their power and reach ... and therefore their budgets. I imagine there is a lot of overlap. Instead of having the CFPB added to the soup, it needs to be eliminated or consolidated with what we already have.

ETA: I see @4Q Basket Case already covered this in much more detail than I can.

 

[Bamaro]

Its started already. I just heard Tim Moore (R-NC) say the trump tax cuts paid for themselves to the tune of 1T and should be continued and maybe increased.
Everybody likes the idea of paying less taxes but sometimes, like now, it makes zero sence.

 

[Bamaro]

FWIW, relating to getting rid of the penny because it costs over 3 cents to mint, it now costs 13.8 cents to mint a nickel.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

FWIW, relating to getting rid of the penny because it costs over 3 cents to mint, it now costs 13.8 cents to mint a nickel.

I’m guessing this has a lot to do with some people wanting to do away with currency altogether and going entirely digital. I’m against this, of course, but it does make sense…at least for coins.

 

[Bodhisattva]

FWIW, relating to getting rid of the penny because it costs over 3 cents to mint, it now costs 13.8 cents to mint a nickel.

Shhhh! Keep that quiet, man! I've been hoarding nickels for years. I'm going to be rich, I tell ya!