-------------------------------------
Your point about the gravy train flowing at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that was created under the Dodd-Frank Act is an excellent point. I cannot express an opinion on the benefits of this organization, because I simply do not know the answer to that question. But it is clear to me from reading this article that like most things the government does, the tax payer is getting screwed.

What makes it even more egregious, is that it appears to have been intentionally done so. Refer to these two bullet points from the article:

* "Overall, 449 CFPB employees get at least $100,000 per year and 228 CFPB are paid more than $200,000, according to publicly available 2016 data."

* "Warren deliberately placed the agency inside the Federal Reserve Board. As a result, the salaries there do not have to conform to the pay scale set for federal workers at all other department and agencies.

CFPB spokesman Samuel Gilford justified the high salaries by citing Dodd-Frank's section 1013, saying "€œcompensation at the CFPB is set pursuant to the federal law that established the agency."

Whether Dodd-Frank in whole or in part is a good piece of legislation is in the eye of the beholder. I submitted an earlier post questioning why Trump is subjecting this legislation for review, rather than re-instituting a new and improved Glass-Steagle Act. In my mind, that should have been a higher priority in terms of benefiting the public. You can read about my rationale here: http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-94027-1.html

"The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law in July 2010 following one of the worst economic meltdowns in U.S. history. The goal of the law was ostensibly to put tighter regulations on U.S. financial markets in order to discourage risk and avoid another meltdown." You can debate whether this Act achieved this goal, but clearly further de-regulating the banks and allowing them to re-engage in the risky behavior that lead to the banking crisis in 2008 is not the answer. The concept of "Too Big To Fail" is even more true today than it was in 2008.

When President Clinton removed the Glass-Steagall firewall between Investment and Consumer banking in 1999, it placed individual depositors money at risk. It was done at the behest of the major banks that wanted to make more money by taking higher risks at the expense of the public. It was a classic tale of "heads I win, tales you loose". The unwitting consumer believes that FDIC insurance will protect them from a systemic bank failure. They are wrong - the numbers do not lie (see chart below)

If you want to free up money for small businesses, why not get rid of the FED's Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) which makes it possible for banks to pay consumers zero interest on their deposits while investing those deposits in Treasury Bills and Bonds at zero risk? True, seniors and savers in general get screwed, but hey, the big banks and Wall Street is where our politicians get their campaign contributions, and what are the seniors and savers going to do anyway?

Comments People???

https://youtu.be/gOJiayZoNDI

https://reason.com/reasontv/2017/01/23/thales-academy-north-carolina-bob-luddy

__________________

OK Peter, I'll put that in context. In 2015, when Obama was president, Chuck Schumer made the following statement, "Every refugee has to be vetted and they have to make sure that there is no connection whatsoever with terrorism and if there is even a doubt, they should not be admitted." Fast forward to 2017, and now the president is Trump. When the same temporary ban on immigration from Muslim countries deem a "threat to national security is put in place, here is Chuck Schumer's response, while shedding f**e tears: "This executive order is mean spirited, and un-American."

You want to quibble on why Saudi Arabia was left off the ban, but do not want to focus on the hypocrisy and blatant political partisanship of Chuck Schumer. Focus Peter, call a spade a spade, and don't try to shift the attention from the point of this post. Do you, or do you not agree with what I have said about Chuck Schumer?

If you would like to compile your own post on why Saudi Arabia should be on the banned list of countries, then by all means do. I will probably agree with you. But in the meantime, let's stick to the subject at hand.

https://youtu.be/8ULkINCDiIA

LPgee wrote:
Coke
Then Lumber.
__________________
Sorry, but I respectfully disagree with your 84 Lumber commercial. The premise of the commercial is a heart rending tale of a mother and daughter's symbolic migrant journey towards becoming a legal American citizen.

Wrong. The process of becoming a legal American citizen does not involve taking a trip in the back of a truck with other people carrying chickens and wh**ever personal possessions you can carry on your back. You don't get dropped off at the edge of a desert, and walk for miles in the heat, begging for water from other migrants trying to cross a border (assumed to be Mexico) only to come across the (assumed to be constructed Trump Wall). It is a commercial with strong political overtones designed to elicit feeling of sympathy and support for migrants due to the hardship and perils of they face in their difficult journey.

Entering our country legally either as a citizen, green card holder, or work visa, does involve paperwork, and a presumably long waiting time. It does not involve some contractor sawing lumber and cutting two large doors into a wall that the mother and daughter walk through to enter our country illegally. But I guess doing it my way does not sell lumber..... but you get the point.

https://youtu.be/nPo2B-vjZ28

The UK's Daily Mail ran an article on February 5 with the above title. These are the bullet points of the article:
* The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated g****l w*****g
* It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on c*****e c****e
* America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules
* The report claimed the pause in g****l w*****g never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data

The crux of the story is as follows. "A high-level whistleblower (Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist) has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015."

This emerging scandal "has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia."

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in g****l w*****g in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

You can read the entire article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

This is just another example of scientific data being manipulated for political and monetary purposes which was discussed in a previous post here: http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-91283-1.html

It really makes you wonder about the motivations of the g****l w*****g alarmists and the fact that they need to fudge the data and lie to the public, which is all to willing to accept the pronouncements of these so called "environmental experts".

Why is the media so quick and willing to accept the claims of these alarmists. Why do you not hear about the 143 Climate Scientists that take a contrary view on the issue of G****l W*****g? http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=289

Here is their "Mission Statement"
“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous g****l w*****g."

Here is another interesting article on why rolling back Dodd-Frank will not help small businesses.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=18299

America Only wrote:
Sorry, I find his "take" on the World Trade Center not factual.
-----------------------
That's a whole other subject for another day!

OK folks. Many of you have expressed your anger and resentment of the problem. Question: have any of you called or written a letter or emailed the representative of your state who v**ed against this amendment?

Unless or until campaign contributions are removed from the political equation, the only way to effect the necessary change in the political process is to put pressure on your elected leaders by expressing your opinion on issues, and if that does not work, then replacing them in the b****t booth at the next e******n.

Are you familiar with Jim Willie, the editor of the Hat Trick Letter? Are you an aware, thinking, rational person who is not afraid to question main street thought and propaganda, and are you willing to spend the time and work to get to the t***h of a matter? If you answer "NO" to any of these questions, then leave this post right now, THIS IS NOT FOR YOU.

Otherwise, I welcome you to listen to an interview of Jim at this link: https://youtu.be/ZT8igqf-WEY

Jim is irreverent, funny, but always brilliant in his analysis.

As someone who worked in the financial industry for over 40 years, I found Trump's first choice of financial regulations to tackle a bit puzzling and troubling to say the least.

While (most) everyone would be in favor of rolling back excessively burdensome regulations which unduly constrain the financial services industry, the Dodd-Frank Act does not fall into that category.

"The term Dodd-Frank refers to a comprehensive and complicated piece of financial regulation born out of the Great Recession of 2008.

In simple terms, Dodd-Frank is a law that places major regulations on the financial industry. It grew out of the Great Recession with the intention of preventing another collapse of a major financial institution like Lehman Brothers.

Dodd-Frank is also geared toward protecting consumers with rules like keeping borrowers from abusive lending and mortgage practices by banks.

One of the main goals of the Dodd-Frank Act is to have banks subjected to a number of regulations along with the possibility of being broken up if any of them are determined to be "€œtoo big to fail."

To do that, the act created the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). It looks out for risks that affect the entire financial industry. It also oversees non-bank financial firms like hedge funds .

If any of the banks gets too big in the council's determination, they could be be regulated by the Federal Reserve, which can ask a bank to increase its reserve requirement, i.e. €”the money it has 'saved up' and is not using for lending or business costs.

Under Dodd-Frank, banks are also required to have plans for a quick and orderly shutdown in the event that the bank becomes insolvent €”or runs out of money.

The Volcker Rule is part of Dodd-Frank and prohibits banks from owning, investing, or sponsoring hedge funds, private equity funds, or any proprietary trading operations for their own profit.

Dodd-Frank requires that the riskiest derivatives "€”like credit default swaps" be regulated by the SEC or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission(CFTC). (Keep in mind that Warren Buffett referred to these financial instruments as [weapons of mass destruction]"

This is a brief synopsis of the Dodd-Frank Act. If you are interested, you can find out more about this at: http://www.cnbc.com/id/47075854

An article in ZeroHedge questions the rollback of Dodd-Frank by stating "Among the targets are rules that protect against predatory lenders, force brokers to lower fees for retirees and ban proprietary trading. Specifically, Trump took executive action ordering the review of Dodd-Frank rules enacted after 2008 financial crisis, and halting the "fiduciary rule" that would require advisers on retirement accounts to work in the best interests of their clients."

So, I ask you, are these the "excessively burdensome regulations which unduly constrain the financial services industry" that Trump should choose as his first foray into the financial services sector?

The ZeroHedge article goes on to say, "While it will take a while to fully roll back the financial regulations, we are confident that Wall Street is already preparing for the next big push into prop trading, major re-leveraging, blowing a whole new set of asset bubbles, and all those other things which brought the system to a near collapse less than 10 years ago.

Finally, while Trump was quick to begin the process of undoing Dodd Frank - no doubt with the helpful advice of numerous former Goldman bankers standing behind his shoulder - he has yet to make any comments on bringing back Glass Steagall, the one law that would truly protect depositors from runaway banker greed, and mandate yet another taxpayer funded bailout the next time the US banking sector is in need of a bailout."

I agree. Re-institution of a new version of Glass Steagall would have been far, far better for the American public. For those interested, Bernie Sanders explains in 5 reasons why it is necessary to implement a new version of this act. https://berniesanders.com/yes-glass-steagall-matters-here-are-5-reasons-why/

It should be noted that before Glass-Steagall was repealed by Bill Clinton in 1999, there was a firewall setup between commercial banking and investment banking. In other words, your deposits were not exposed to a commercial bank's much more risky investment banking activities. Since Glass-Steagall was repealed, your deposits are now exposed to your bank's investment activities, including derivative trading.

Did you know that YOUR deposits are treated as "UNSECURED LIABILITIES" of the bank, and that the bank's derivative's position is given priority over unsecured liabilities?

You may feel comforted by the fact that your deposits are protected by FDIC insurance. To that end, I call your attention to the chart below. In the event of a full blown domestic or worldwide banking crisis or systemic failure, how far will $25 billion go? Have you heard the term "bail-ins"? Look it up here: https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-a-bail-in-and-how-does-it-work-1979089

How will you fare if 20%, or 30%, or 40% of your deposits are bailed in to offset any deficiency in FDIC insurance or any shortfall from additional Treasury support for the FDIC?

So, now do you see my concern for Trump's focus on Dodd-Frank vs. the much more important consumer protection of a new and revised Glass Steagall?

[quote=lpnmajor]Yep. My own State was split, with the Doctor senator v****g "yay" and the lawyer Senator v****g "nay". Interesting huh? This is a classic example of party before people, something the democrats and republicans are equally guilty of. When are people going to figure out that it isn't democratic policies or republicans policies that are the problem - it is democrats and republicans that are the problem.
_____________________

Our representatives in both parties are subject to the same "need" for campaign contributions in order to sustain their ability to hold office. PACs and millionaires and billionaires behind the scene fund and support the campaigns, and we wonder why our government is the best money can buy. It is the wealthy and influential to whom or elected leaders owe their allegiance, not the people that they have been elected to represent.

Ideas such as "term limits", equal "free air time" for campaigning, public funding of campaigns, and the elimination of PAC's and corporate support for campaigns should be debated as part of a campaign reform agenda.

It was a Democratic amendment sponsored by Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Bernie Sanders. It was pro-working class and anti-Big Pharma. It even enticed "Yes" v**es from 12 GOP senators. And yet 13 Democrats, including Sen. Cory Booker, helped k**l a measure aimed at making prescription drugs more affordable. It failed 46-52.

A Kaiser Health tracking poll last year found that 72 percent of Americans favor allowing drugs to be imported from Canada. Ya know who doesn’t favor that: pharmaceutical companies. And 13 Democrats. Booker, who has gotten more money from the pharmaceutical industry over the past six years than any other Democratic senator ($267,338), did issue an explanation. The Intercept gives it some context.

In a statement to the media after the v**e, Booker’s office said he supports the importation of prescription drugs but that “any plan to allow the importation of prescription medications should also include consumer protections that ensure foreign drugs meet American safety standards. I opposed an amendment put forward last night that didn’t meet this test.”

This argument is the same one offered by the pharmaceutical industry. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which lobbies against importation, maintains that it opposes importation because “foreign governments will not ensure that prescription drugs entering the U.S. from abroad are safe and effective.” [...]

The safety excuse is mostly a chimera, as most of the drugs that would be imported from Canada were originally manufactured in the United States; they’re just cheaper there, because the Canadian government uses a review board and price negotiation to make drugs more affordable.

“My first response to that is show me the dead Canadians. Where are the dead Canadians?” former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, once asked during his own push to allow for importation.

Here are the "Yeas" and "Nays"

Now, what are YOU going to do about it????

------------------
Good to know, and I'm glad that you are able to do this. Most people may not be as knowledgable or diligent as you in finding the best prices for your drugs. The point I'm trying to make is that most people are overpaying for their doctor prescribed medications. (Fortunately, I myself take no drugs, and would only do so as a last resort). While US Healthcare costs spiral, I do not see a major outcry from the American public or it's political leaders. We have yet to see how the Trump Administration handles this matter, and I remain cautiously optimistic.

But it just burns my a-- to see hypocrites such as Corey Booker who accepted over $267,000 from pharmaceutical companies the past 6 years, protect the profit margins of his political donors over that of his constituents.

I am hoping that posts like this will help engage the public to let our political leaders know that there is a price to be paid at the b****t box for acting upon their self-serving interests. I for one have had a profound change of heart on the character and statesmanship of Corey Booker.

__________

Can anyone explain to me if a pharmaceutical company willingly sells it's products at a much lower price to Canadians, why Americans should not be allowed to buy that same product from a Canadian pharmacy? It should be obvious to all why our political leaders do not allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies.

Would it not be a simple fix to legislate that any drug sold in the United States cannot be priced at an amount greater than that which it is sold to a wholesale pharmacy in any country other than the United States. Give Medicare administrators the ability to negotiate the price of drugs that Medicare will pay using the same pricing guidelines that pharmaceutical companies sell to other countries.

After all, most pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising and lobbying expenses than they do on research and development. I also have been led to believe that most research is done with funds spend by the National Institute of Health which is your tax dollars at work.