• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Defies Congress With ‘Recess’ Picks. Could Provoke Constitutional Fight.

AdamT said:
A huge majority of Americans -- including a majority of REPUBLICANS -- supported the CFPB. Kinda makes you wonder who the Republicans in Congress were representing there, doesn't it?
Click to expand...


Well, see it is among the favorite tricks of the libs. Name something like the CFPB a "Protection board" then wait and see if anyone actually reads the bill. Guess what, they did, and when Obama tasked Elizabeth Warren to set it up, and she in true Marxist fashion started signaling that she wanted to raid peoples 401Ks, clear minded people woke up, and put the breaks on it thank God.

Now, if the Plan was to go after things like Payday loans, and Title loans, things that actually are predatory by their very business model then I am all for it, but see, Obama can't be honest, and neither can you libs. You all just can't help yourselves from over reaching and trying to slip in Marxist trash while you lie to the people.


j-mac
 
Henrin said:
A republic protects the rights of all. You are asking that a group of people give up rights for your calls and pays for those calls to boot.
Click to expand...

WTH are you talking about? That's the whole purpose of the CFPB- to protect people's rights... Whose rights are being given up? The banks' right to defraud people?
 
j-mac said:
Wrong, he violated them.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Uhhh noo....

Article 2 Section 2

The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Uhhh noo....

Article 2 Section 2

The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. That is correct. However, too bad for you that Article 1 Section 5 comes first....The Senate was not in recess.

j-mac
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Uhhh noo....

Article 2 Section 2

The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right. It is clearly constitutional. The GOP is trying to get around it with a technicality. They want to pretend that if they just never say that they're in recess even when they are, then they can basically just strip that power from the executive branch. That isn't how the constitution works at all though. The constitution isn't a technicality you can trick, it's basic guiding principles for how our government is to operate.
 
haymarket said:
And that is exactly what our government is doing.
Click to expand...

Nope. When they form agencies that exist to strip power of decision making from people they are not doing it.
 
teamosil said:
WTH are you talking about? That's the whole purpose of the CFPB- to protect people's rights... Whose rights are being given up? The banks' right to defraud people?
Click to expand...

To form ideas on how to resolve problems that exist. If it is in fact fraud as you claim treat it as such and not as something you can use to put your solutions on the market with.
 
Henrin said:
To form ideas on how to resolve problems that exist. If it is in fact fraud as you claim treat it as such and not as something you can use to put your solutions on the market with.
Click to expand...

That's fine if you think it isn't the best solution from a policy perspective. By all means, you're free to be part of the 20%. We use democratic means to resolve questions like that, to 80% > 20%. But you had said something about it violating people's rights somehow and that protecting rights trumped democracy. What's that about? Whose rights are being violated by fighting fraud?
 
Henrin said:
Nope. When they form agencies that exist to strip power of decision making from people they are not doing it.
Click to expand...

Strip the power of decision making from people.... what does that phrase specifically mean in real terms? Like the power to decide what exactly? I believe previously you did not approve of the government stripping you of your power to decide where on the highway you felt you could drive. Is this another one of those type of things?
 
Henrin said:
The rights of people? Please, that is dishonest right from the start. Its regulates banks and puts in place their solutions trumping their rights and the responsibly of people. All it does is allow the fed the power to control more of the economy while trumping rights of people.
Click to expand...

Excuse me? The CFPB is primarily tasked with improving transparency in financial transations so that less sophisticated borrowers (and they are almost all less sophisticated than the bankers) aren't taken advantage of. They will also provide consumer education, and enforce anti-discrmination laws. "The people" won't have their rights trumped. In other words, it is the exact opposite of taking decision making away from people. What it does is ensure that documents are written in plain English and are not deceptive, so that people can make decisions in the light of day.

This has nothing to do with everyone that opposes the CFPB. Your argument is like saying because someone opposes the EPA they are for everyone dieing because of chemicals. You don't see how dishonest that is, do you?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is like saying that, although I wouldn't put it so hyperbolically. Generally speaking, people who oppose the EPA want to benefit industry by loosening environmental regulations. And people who oppose the CFPB want to benefit the financial industry by allowing them to use unfair and deceptive trade practices. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Strip the power of decision making from people.... what does that phrase specifically mean in real terms? Like the power to decide what exactly? I believe previously you did not approve of the government stripping you of your power to decide where on the highway you felt you could drive. Is this another one of those type of things?
Click to expand...

In a way I guess, as it is a freedom argument of sorts, but beyond that, its not all that comparable. This is the government finding a problem and deciding a solution on it. The EPA, the FCC, and the CFPB does this everyday. Most of which aren't even problems to begin with, but that is a different subject.
 
AdamT said:
Yes, it is like saying that, although I wouldn't put it so hyperbolically. Generally speaking, people who oppose the EPA want to benefit industry by loosening environmental regulations. And people who oppose the CFPB want to benefit the financial industry by allowing them to use unfair and deceptive trade practices. :shrug:
Click to expand...


No that is the yoke you dishonestly want to hang around your opponents necks. Man, you guy's are gonna be cryin' when Obama, and the whole Chicago thug gang are booted out.



j-mac
 
Henrin said:
A republic protects the rights of all. You are asking that a group of people give up rights for your calls and pays for those calls to boot.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy. Every issue will have people on both sides. There is never 100% agreement. Thus, the majority rules, or should if the government is being responsive to the people.
 
j-mac said:
No that is the yoke you dishonestly want to hang around your opponents necks. Man, you guy's are gonna be cryin' when Obama, and the whole Chicago thug gang are booted out.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Well then I'm all ears. If you don't oppose environmental protection, why wold you want to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency? And if you don't oppose consumer financial protection, why would you oppose the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? :popcorn2:
 
AdamT said:
Excuse me? The CFPB is primarily tasked with improving transparency in financial transations so that less sophisticated borrowers (and they are almost all less sophisticated than the bankers) aren't taken advantage of.
Click to expand...

A contract is to be understood by both sides. If you can prove, which you can't, that people are being tricked into loans they can't afford and aren't just incompetent you don't need an agency to do so that dictates terms of how contracts are to be formed.

They will also provide consumer education, and enforce anti-discrmination laws.
Click to expand...

I disagree with those types of discrimination laws as I should be able to determine who I wish to do business with for whatever reason I desire. That is the part of what makes us free. Treating it like I can't decide who I want to business with doesn't allow me to practice my property rights and treats me like a slave to others wishes and desires with my property and my time.

Second, the government doesn't need to educate on how to do business. They just need to learn to read contracts and understand their own limits which they can do on their own. If they can't, the banks can just have policies that put them out of the equation fixing the problem like they did before the government decided they were wrong. Education on the matter is not necessary and an unneeded expense.

Yes, it is like saying that, although I wouldn't put it so hyperbolically. Generally speaking, people who oppose the EPA want to benefit industry by loosening environmental regulations.
Click to expand...

Nope. Most want laws against harm, not control of industry, everyday life and the rights of people which is what the EPA offers.

And people who oppose the CFPB want to benefit the financial industry by allowing them to use unfair and deceptive trade practices. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Hardly.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy. Every issue will have people on both sides. There is never 100% agreement. Thus, the majority rules, or should if the government is being responsive to the people.
Click to expand...

The government can represent all people by protecting their rights and liberties. Trying to enact forces on people fails at that purpose and exactly where problems begin.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
A contract is to be understood by both sides. If you can prove, which you can't, that people are being tricked into loans they can't afford and aren't just incompetent you don't need an agency to do so that dictates terms of how contracts are to be formed.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the financial crisis? Great Recession ring any bells? Never read any of the hundreds of stories about people who were sold ARMs with balloon payments? Have you ever bought a house yourself? Do you think you understood the 30 or so pages of six-point legalese in the contract? I'll bet you didn't. That's no slam against you; almost no one does. But people buy houses every day and generally have to trust the bank or mortgage broker that there are no hidden surprises. Same goes for credit cards and all sorts of other transactions. I don't know about you, but every few months I get a "privacy statement" or something of the sort from a credit card company announcing changes to the terms of the credit card contract. Again, it's page after page of complex legalese that most people simply don't have the education to understand.


I disagree with those types of discrimination laws as I should be able to determine who I wish to do business with for whatever reason I desire. That is the part of what makes us free.
Click to expand...

I doubt you would feel that way if YOU were the one being discriminated against. If that was the case I don't think you'd feel that the absence of discrimination laws made you free at all. In fact I think you'd feel kind of like a slave, or second class citizen.

Second, the government doesn't need to educate on how to do business. They just need to learn to read contracts and understand their own limits which they can do on their own. If they can't, the banks can just have policies that put them out of the equation fixing the problem like they did before the government decided they were wrong. Education on the matter is not necessary and an unneeded expense.
Click to expand...

I assure you that it's very necessary. In any transaction involving a giant financial institution and a typical consumer there is a huge imbalance of power and knowledge in favor of the financial institution. You want to hire a lawyer every time you buy a toaster?
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
The government can represent all people by protecting their rights and liberties. Trying to enact forces on people fails at that purpose and exactly where problems begin.
Click to expand...

In most cases when you protect one persons right you are infringing on someone else's right.
 
AdamT said:
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy. Every issue will have people on both sides. There is never 100% agreement. Thus, the majority rules, or should if the government is being responsive to the people.
Click to expand...


This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the United states is. We are NOT a democracy.

j-mac
 
AdamT said:
In most cases when you protect one persons right you are infringing on someone else's right.
Click to expand...

Punishing of violations of the rights surely details stripping some rights of that person in most cases, yes. Beyond criminals, the answer is no.
 
j-mac said:
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the United states is. We are NOT a democracy.

j-mac
Click to expand...

We are a representative democracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom