wellwisher
Well-Known Member
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/03/1203...s-skeptical-of-a-challenge-to-consumer-agency
There is a Supreme Court case against the Consumer Protection Agency now called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This case is not so much about its consumer mission, but more about the way it is funded. Congress is supposed to make laws and decide funding, but this agency gets its money from the Federal Reserve, rather than from the normal annual appropriations process. What that means it they are not accountable to the three branches of government or law, since their are not vulnerable to the annual appropriation process. They can make laws and rules and nothing can be done by the government. This means they can be part of the swamp; above the law. The only way to deal with this rogue agency is the Supreme Court via a Civil Case.
A case in point, that is not part of this particular Supreme Court case, but should make everyone worry, is where was the Consumer Protection Agency when millions of consumers of college goods and services, were being indebted $100's billions? Students and parent were/are consumers of educational goods and services, in the market place, with inflating prices, misrepresentations in terms of earning power, and no method to declare bankruptcy, if they got over their head. This consumer scam resulted in hundred of billions of dollar in debt and losses, all with the consumer protection agency looking the other way. The solution was to force the tax payers to pay this back while not including the colleges at the bargaining table. This solution is a secondary consumer rip off, where people who did not even enjoy the source of debt, are is forced to buy into what you do not want. It smells like the Swamp was free to rip off the consumer.
The agency dropped the ball, because it is not really about the consumer. The title is a feel good label to make it sound legitimate. It was set up to be above the law. The Supreme Court needs to ask why they dropped the student loan ball and allowed so many millions of young consumers to get ripped off, with no easy legal way out? What is the real purpose of this agency, and why does it needs to be unaccountable to the appropriation process?
To put this rip off into perspective, say the Auto Makers all decide to run a special for high school and college age students. The special will be new cars, with no money down, and zero interest and payments for four years. After that, you start to pay back the car, but with the stipulation, you cannot declare bankruptcy from the debt.
Young people are optimists, so millions get in on the deal and all get new cars with no immediate expenses. Everyone is having fun cruising the miracle mile over many years. The strong demand, raises the prices, again and again, with the same deal of no payments for four years.
After four years, the cows come home. The students now have a used car, with a large new car payment. Would the consumer protection agency have come in earlier or would they let it ride? Why didn't they do the same for the Big College, debt scam? Was it bribery or was it political pressure from people like Liz Warren, who earned an inflated salary from Harvard, while she was Senator. Is the consumer protection agency really a front for college campaign donation quid pro quo, and other forms of financial donation, swamp quid pro quo? It was set up to be above the law, which was a tell.
There is a Supreme Court case against the Consumer Protection Agency now called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This case is not so much about its consumer mission, but more about the way it is funded. Congress is supposed to make laws and decide funding, but this agency gets its money from the Federal Reserve, rather than from the normal annual appropriations process. What that means it they are not accountable to the three branches of government or law, since their are not vulnerable to the annual appropriation process. They can make laws and rules and nothing can be done by the government. This means they can be part of the swamp; above the law. The only way to deal with this rogue agency is the Supreme Court via a Civil Case.
A case in point, that is not part of this particular Supreme Court case, but should make everyone worry, is where was the Consumer Protection Agency when millions of consumers of college goods and services, were being indebted $100's billions? Students and parent were/are consumers of educational goods and services, in the market place, with inflating prices, misrepresentations in terms of earning power, and no method to declare bankruptcy, if they got over their head. This consumer scam resulted in hundred of billions of dollar in debt and losses, all with the consumer protection agency looking the other way. The solution was to force the tax payers to pay this back while not including the colleges at the bargaining table. This solution is a secondary consumer rip off, where people who did not even enjoy the source of debt, are is forced to buy into what you do not want. It smells like the Swamp was free to rip off the consumer.
The agency dropped the ball, because it is not really about the consumer. The title is a feel good label to make it sound legitimate. It was set up to be above the law. The Supreme Court needs to ask why they dropped the student loan ball and allowed so many millions of young consumers to get ripped off, with no easy legal way out? What is the real purpose of this agency, and why does it needs to be unaccountable to the appropriation process?
To put this rip off into perspective, say the Auto Makers all decide to run a special for high school and college age students. The special will be new cars, with no money down, and zero interest and payments for four years. After that, you start to pay back the car, but with the stipulation, you cannot declare bankruptcy from the debt.
Young people are optimists, so millions get in on the deal and all get new cars with no immediate expenses. Everyone is having fun cruising the miracle mile over many years. The strong demand, raises the prices, again and again, with the same deal of no payments for four years.
After four years, the cows come home. The students now have a used car, with a large new car payment. Would the consumer protection agency have come in earlier or would they let it ride? Why didn't they do the same for the Big College, debt scam? Was it bribery or was it political pressure from people like Liz Warren, who earned an inflated salary from Harvard, while she was Senator. Is the consumer protection agency really a front for college campaign donation quid pro quo, and other forms of financial donation, swamp quid pro quo? It was set up to be above the law, which was a tell.
