Kind of strange situation going on in DC but what isn't these days?

So if you're not up to date on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), its acting director resigned last week (actually he announced his resignation earlier than that but he left the office a week earlier than expected). The Dodd-Frank Act which helped create the CFPB clearly states that if the acting director of the CFPB leaves, the new director should be the current deputy director (Leander English).

President Trump and his legal team disagree (and they don't like the CFPB to begin with). So he named his budget director Mick Mulvaney as the new director to run that office until Congress names a new director (which knowing the current Congress can take a long time). His legal team issued an 8-page document saying that the Vacancies Reform Act supersedes the Dodd-Frank Act and gives the President the ultimate authority to name a temporary head.

So apparently both Mulvaney and English may show up to work tomorrow, both expecting the cushy corner office. It may take a lengthy legal battle to decide which law takes precedence over the naming of the new director.

My brother (a consumer law expert in New York) is pissed. He's very big into consumer rights and feels this move is aimed at completely getting rid of the organization's power. It's way too complicated and over my pay level for me to figure out who is right in their interpretation of the laws, but at the very least, this move continues to show me my theory of Obama and Trump's presidencies being complete parallels (but at opposite ends of the political scale) is 100 percent correct.

I agree that the Obama and Trump presidencies are pretty much polar opposites. And I pretty much don't agree with wither one on anything.

IMO the CFPB is a bad idea that needs to go away, at least in its present form. I suppose that if I were a consumer lawyer I might agree with your brother, because it certainly opens up a lot of playing field for ambulance chasers. But otherwise I think it is mostly counterproductive overkill. Just like most of the rest of Dodd-Frank. Then again, when you take two unsavory characters who should probably be in prison for their roles in bringing about the home mortgage crisis, and put them in charge of the bill to "solve" the problem, what can you expect?

(11-26-2017 09:28 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Kind of strange situation going on in DC but what isn't these days?

So if you're not up to date on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), its acting director resigned last week (actually he announced his resignation earlier than that but he left the office a week earlier than expected). The Dodd-Frank Act which helped create the CFPB clearly states that if the acting director of the CFPB leaves, the new director should be the current deputy director (Leander English).

President Trump and his legal team disagree (and they don't like the CFPB to begin with). So he named his budget director Mick Mulvaney as the new director to run that office until Congress names a new director (which knowing the current Congress can take a long time). His legal team issued an 8-page document saying that the Vacancies Reform Act supersedes the Dodd-Frank Act and gives the President the ultimate authority to name a temporary head.

So apparently both Mulvaney and English may show up to work tomorrow, both expecting the cushy corner office. It may take a lengthy legal battle to decide which law takes precedence over the naming of the new director.

My brother (a consumer law expert in New York) is pissed. He's very big into consumer rights and feels this move is aimed at completely getting rid of the organization's power. It's way too complicated and over my pay level for me to figure out who is right in their interpretation of the laws, but at the very least, this move continues to show me my theory of Obama and Trump's presidencies being complete parallels (but at opposite ends of the political scale) is 100 percent correct.

thank you dippos.....you've done one helluva job driving to socialism via growing ze gubbberment....

be careful what you ask for son......you might not like the outcome.....

#kurtwarnerbaggedgrocieriestoo

(11-26-2017 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I agree that the Obama and Trump presidencies are pretty much polar opposites. And I pretty much don't agree with either one on anything.

IMO the CFPB is a bad idea that needs to go away, at least in its present form. I suppose that if I were a consumer lawyer I might agree with your brother, because it certainly opens up a lot of playing field for ambulance chasers. But otherwise I think it is mostly counterproductive overkill. Just like most of the rest of Dodd-Frank. Then again, when you take two unsavory characters who should probably be in prison for their roles in bringing about the home mortgage crisis, and put them in charge of the bill to "solve" the problem, what can you expect?

doesn't that somewhat contradict your opening statement in bold (excluding 0'bummer)?

(11-26-2017 09:48 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I agree that the Obama and Trump presidencies are pretty much polar opposites. And I pretty much don't agree with either one on anything.
IMO the CFPB is a bad idea that needs to go away, at least in its present form. I suppose that if I were a consumer lawyer I might agree with your brother, because it certainly opens up a lot of playing field for ambulance chasers. But otherwise I think it is mostly counterproductive overkill. Just like most of the rest of Dodd-Frank. Then again, when you take two unsavory characters who should probably be in prison for their roles in bringing about the home mortgage crisis, and put them in charge of the bill to "solve" the problem, what can you expect?

doesn't that somewhat contradict your opening statement in bold (excluding 0'bummer)?

No, because I'd pretty much go a totally different way on just about everything. I probably agree with maybe 10% of Trump and slightly less with Obama. I haven't liked the direction we are headed for about 20 years.

I need to correct one thing from my first post. Trump still names a new director and the Senate has to confirm it - so it's not Congress naming the new director. Actually Trump's eventual pick might be rejected by the current Senate if it's a Mulvaney type clone. I could see McCain, Corker, Flake, Collins, etc., rejecting a pick, and it's pretty obvious every Democrat will reject his nominee. So chances are Trump will take his time in naming a successor if Mulvaney wins the legal battle over English. If English wins the battle, he'll name a successor in rapid fashion I'm sure (but he may have to name a more moderate choice instead).

(11-26-2017 09:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 09:48 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 09:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I agree that the Obama and Trump presidencies are pretty much polar opposites. And I pretty much don't agree with either one on anything.
IMO the CFPB is a bad idea that needs to go away, at least in its present form. I suppose that if I were a consumer lawyer I might agree with your brother, because it certainly opens up a lot of playing field for ambulance chasers. But otherwise I think it is mostly counterproductive overkill. Just like most of the rest of Dodd-Frank. Then again, when you take two unsavory characters who should probably be in prison for their roles in bringing about the home mortgage crisis, and put them in charge of the bill to "solve" the problem, what can you expect?

doesn't that somewhat contradict your opening statement in bold (excluding 0'bummer)?

No, because I'd pretty much go a totally different way on just about everything. I probably agree with maybe 10% of Trump and slightly less with Obama. I haven't liked the direction we are headed for about 20 years.

so do I when it comes to politics......hence, the point about DJT not being a politician, #drainswamp, etc......

I find it strange how we can't agree on this one (b/c we mostly agree on principle)......I can respect that as your op-ed....however, I only see you hammering 'personality' when it comes to DJT vs. policy with 0'bummer....

JMO....

(11-26-2017 10:11 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  so do I when it comes to politics......hence, the point about DJT not being a politician, #drainswamp, etc......
I find it strange how we can't agree on this one (b/c we mostly agree on principle)......I can respect that as your op-ed....however, I only see you hammering 'personality' when it comes to DJT vs. policy with 0'bummer....
JMO....

I probably like Trump's personality more than I agree with him on issues.

In particular, I don't agree on two of his biggies--free trade and immigration. And while I agree on the need for tax reform and the need to get rid of Obamacare, I don't go along with the approaches being taken by republicans on either one.

If being a conservative means being fiscally responsible and favoring things that work in practice over theoretical constructs that don't--as I think it should--then I still say that the day they took back the house in 2011, republicans' first order of business should have been to pass Bismarck health care and Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin, or some combination of the best of both, and to send them to the senate for Reid and Obama to have to deal with two very hot potatoes. But they didn't.

Instead of offering alternatives, republicans are just being democrats-lite. We'll do the same things, we'll just spend less on them. But not much less. And we'll throw in a few of our own goodies to dig the hole deeper. Driving off the cliff slower is not a solution. We need somebody to say, this ain't working, let's do something different. Trump could, but hasn't. I think it takes somebody like him, who doesn't give a rat's ass what anybody thinks about him, to do it. But so far he has wasted a lot of time and effort fighting the wrong battles IMO.

I see republicans as the only alternative to collectivist/socialist/communist democrats. I used to think blue dogs were the answer, but they have all been removed.

The dispute comes down to is a resignation/vacancy the same as "being absent or unavailable "

Anytime a there is a cabinet member vacancy the President had the right to appoint an interim secretary until the Senate confirms the true nominee. I don't see why this would be different.

(11-26-2017 10:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 10:11 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  so do I when it comes to politics......hence, the point about DJT not being a politician, #drainswamp, etc......
I find it strange how we can't agree on this one (b/c we mostly agree on principle)......I can respect that as your op-ed....however, I only see you hammering 'personality' when it comes to DJT vs. policy with 0'bummer....
JMO....

I probably like Trump's personality more than I agree with him on issues.

In particular, I don't agree on two of his biggies--free trade and immigration. And while I agree on the need for tax reform and the need to get rid of Obamacare, I don't go along with the approaches being taken by republicans on either one.

If being a conservative means being fiscally responsible and favoring things that work in practice over theoretical constructs that don't--as I think it should--then I still say that the day they took back the house in 2011, republicans' first order of business should have been to pass Bismarck health care and Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin, or some combination of the best of both, and to send them to the senate for Reid and Obama to have to deal with two very hot potatoes. But they didn't.

Instead of offering alternatives, republicans are just being democrats-lite. We'll do the same things, we'll just spend less on them. But not much less. And we'll throw in a few of our own goodies to dig the hole deeper. Driving off the cliff slower is not a solution. We need somebody to say, this ain't working, let's do something different. Trump could, but hasn't. I think it takes somebody like him, who doesn't give a rat's ass what anybody thinks about him, to do it. But so far he has wasted a lot of time and effort fighting the wrong battles IMO.

I see republicans as the only alternative to collectivist/socialist/communist democrats. I used to think blue dogs were the answer, but they have all been removed.

I'm easily in your camp on healthcare policy (don't forget, his first move was to drive "repeal") - definitely not on immigration......however, what's that ol' sayin', "rome wasn't built in a day...."

both you and I will be long gone "if" some semblance of sanity returns to the heads of those that ru(i)n this country....

again, no differently than you pine about healthcare, I pine how DJT was a last attempt at regaining sanity.....

just go back a year and imagine if ANYONE else was in that chair........status quo would've continued to reign supreme, divide, and flounder.....

IMO, that matters most if looking for change as an isolated voter.....it's not my fault a third party isn't an option among the masses.....I only look at the tools that are available.....it's akin to using my right foot if the left one wasn't an option attacking shooting laser beams at the goal (and I'm left footed)

I really truly could not care any less.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(11-26-2017 10:53 AM)solohawks Wrote:  The dispute comes down to is a resignation/vacancy the same as "being absent or unavailable "
Anytime a there is a cabinet member vacancy the President had the right to appoint an interim secretary until the Senate confirms the true nominee. I don't see why this would be different.

Why it may not be is because the CFPB was created more to sustain and grow the bureaucracy than to provide real assistance to consumers, so there are some quirky aspects to the law. Similar things happened with the creation of IPAB under Obamacare. Remember, democrats were on a super power trip, largely because republicans pretty much punted in 2008.

(11-26-2017 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 10:53 AM)solohawks Wrote:  The dispute comes down to is a resignation/vacancy the same as "being absent or unavailable "
Anytime a there is a cabinet member vacancy the President had the right to appoint an interim secretary until the Senate confirms the true nominee. I don't see why this would be different.

Why it may not be is because the CFPB was created more to sustain and grow the bureaucracy than to provide real assistance to consumers, so there are some quirky aspects to the law. Similar things happened with the creation of IPAB under Obamacare. Remember, democrats were on a super power trip, largely because republicans pretty much punted in 2008.

that XACLY! how it went down...another 'check mark' in the DJT column.....

Maybe nobody runs it. That is probably a good thing. Last thing we need is another unanswerable agency.

(11-26-2017 10:53 AM)solohawks Wrote:  The dispute comes down to is a resignation/vacancy the same as "being absent or unavailable "

Anytime a there is a cabinet member vacancy the President had the right to appoint an interim secretary until the Senate confirms the true nominee. I don't see why this would be different.

No, not really. "The Deputy Director ... serve[s] as Director in the absence or unavailability of the Director."

The question is whether a Director is "absent of unavailable" when there is *no* Director at all.

Point me to a Director who is "absent or unavailable". Unfortunately, there is no Director at all, so 'the Director' cannot be absent when no one actually has the office.

Think of this analogy. Schools get money for 'each student enrolled at the school and not absent'. Little Johnny gets run over by a car. If he survives, the school gets money for his 'absence'. If he gets squashed like a pumpkin, there is no student left; the school doesnt get money for a 'student absence' when the student no longer exists.

And yes, you are correct that the Vacancies Act gives the President the exact power you describe.

But leave it to the progs to create this shitsideshow.

Who cares

(11-26-2017 03:36 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Who cares

Libturds do, because Trump wins again.

Could be setting a poor precedent if Trump continues to follow a path where he makes up the rules as he goes along. You shouldn't need to release an 8-page brief with countless hours by your legal team to justify your latest political appointment.

(11-26-2017 06:43 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Could be setting a poor precedent if Trump continues to follow a path where he makes up the rules as he goes along. You shouldn't need to release an 8-page brief with countless hours by your legal team to justify your latest political appointment.

I'm sorry......who started down the path of circumventing the system with EO after EO after EO after EO??? (rhetorical)

let's also not forget how 'shite for brains health care' was implemented by the dippos in congress....

do you really believe all the bs you write in relative terms??? (rhetorical)

you guys are getting your arse spanked with more than any studded sex paddle would inflict......how 'bout working with the right for a change???

nah, **** it.....I enjoy taking point blank shots from 1000 yards away......

(11-26-2017 06:43 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Could be setting a poor precedent if Trump continues to follow a path where he makes up the rules as he goes along. You shouldn't need to release an 8-page brief with countless hours by your legal team to justify your latest political appointment.

You do when clueless numbnut libturd judges keep tossing out dumb*** rulings.