Where's your outrage?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/4/obama-unprecedented-recess-appointment/
hehehehe just wait. You ain't seen nothing yet! ;)
Okay, I'll play, let's pull one from the Bush era:
"He's wiping his donkey with the Constitution!"
Next appointment? George Kaiser to Energy Secretary?
Meh. . .It's the only card he could play. His own majority won't work with him for fear of tainting their re-election.
He's gota do what he's gota do.
Someone doesn't know the meaning of "unconstitutional."
Quote from: Conan71 on January 04, 2012, 03:07:38 PM
Okay, I'll play, let's pull one from the Bush era:
"He's wiping his donkey with the Constitution!"
Next appointment? George Kaiser to Energy Secretary?
GK has better things to do than lower himself to that level.
Nate, what be unconstitutional?...wiping the document like Bush did?
The position is actually the unconstitutional part. It has no congressional oversight fir funding under Dodd Frank, and according to the bill it actually has no power unless it is granted a congressional approval, so basically this was no more than a very strange political stunt.
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 04, 2012, 06:58:43 PM
GK has better things to do than lower himself to that level.
Nate, what be unconstitutional?...wiping the document like Bush did?
http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/04/obama-promises-not-to-use-military-deten
Quote from: Gaspar on January 04, 2012, 03:34:43 PM
Meh. . .It's the only card he could play. His own majority won't work with him for fear of tainting their re-election.
He's gota do what he's gota do.
You do realize it was the Republicans who blocked it? With the filibuster thingy...
Quote from: Gaspar on January 04, 2012, 07:54:23 PM
The position is actually the unconstitutional part. It has no congressional oversight fir funding under Dodd Frank, and according to the bill it actually has no power unless it is granted a congressional approval
No, yes, and no. The position is not unconstitutional, unless your claim is that all non-cabinet-level agencies are unconstitutional. Its budget is not subject to the normal congressional appropriations process, which, by the way, is perfectly constitutional. Congress can and has on many prior occasions created agencies with automatic funding. And under Dodd-Frank, the CFPA becomes operational when a director takes office.
You may not like recess appointments, but they are completely constitutional. It's long settled law, so quit whining like a petulant child.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 05, 2012, 09:15:18 AM
You do realize it was the Republicans who blocked it? With the filibuster thingy...
Actually it was a procedural thingy called a "pro forma session." Same thing Harry Reid successfully used to block Bush nominations.
The word is that the evil capitalists at US Chamber of Commerce are going to mount a legal challenge.
This was a political stunt for the campaign. This little stunt will cost the tax payers millions of course, but who's counting?
Quote from: nathanm on January 05, 2012, 11:11:33 AM
No, yes, and no. The position is not unconstitutional, unless your claim is that all non-cabinet-level agencies are unconstitutional. Its budget is not subject to the normal congressional appropriations process, which, by the way, is perfectly constitutional. Congress can and has on many prior occasions created agencies with automatic funding. And under Dodd-Frank, the CFPA becomes operational when a director takes office.
You may not like recess appointments, but they are completely constitutional. It's long settled law, so quit whining like a petulant child.
There is a difference here. The budget of this agency is niter established in the Dodd Frank bill, or subject to congressional approval, so it becomes the discretion of the director. That is not constitutional. That is an agency with a blank check.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 05, 2012, 11:14:53 AM
That is not constitutional. That is an agency with a blank check.
Actually, it is, and was the entire point. The agency is specifically designed to not have to hew to the demands of bank lobbyists. Congress is free to change how the agency is funded at any time, but it was deliberately designed to be difficult. I can't believe you're actually claiming that having regulators beholden to lobbyists is a good idea.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 05, 2012, 11:13:10 AM
Actually it was a procedural thingy called a "pro forma session." Same thing Harry Reid successfully used to block Bush nominations.
The word is that the evil capitalists at US Chamber of Commerce are going to mount a legal challenge.
This was a political stunt for the campaign. This little stunt will cost the tax payers millions of course, but who's counting?
Yep. All of the above.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 05, 2012, 11:13:10 AM
The word is that the evil capitalists at US Chamber of Commerce are going to mount a legal challenge.
I know you were trying to lend credibility to your argument, but invoking the name of a lobbying organization that has never seen a regulation they could live with isn't much help.
Quote from: nathanm on January 05, 2012, 11:19:25 AM
Actually, it is, and was the entire point. The agency is specifically designed to not have to hew to the demands of bank lobbyists citizens. Congress is free to change how the agency is funded at any time, but it was deliberately designed to be difficult. I can't believe you're actually claiming that having regulators beholden to lobbyists the people is a good idea.
FIFY
No matter how you dance, unchecked budgets lead to unchecked power. Dodd and Frank realized that the only way to insure that an agency could not be influenced by lobby efforts was to make that agency immune from any form of public funding control. Unfortunately that cannot be interpreted as constitutional. The president knows that.
Additionally, the appointment cannot stand, because congress was in pro forma session. You may remember when Bush intended to ram through recess appointments and Harry Reid kept congress in pro forma. Bush backed down because it would have been a violation of the constitution. President Obama knows that too. Also be aware that any recess appointments expire at the end of the Senate's next session. So the act, and the following legal challenges from both private and public sector forces is a political ballet for the sheep that need to see president obama making decisive leader-like movements.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 05, 2012, 01:01:53 PM
No matter how you dance, unchecked budgets lead to unchecked power. Dodd and Frank realized that the only way to insure that an agency could not be influenced by lobby efforts was to make that agency immune from any form of public funding control. Unfortunately that cannot be interpreted as constitutional. The president knows that.
Gaspar, are you really that stupid or are you just trolling? CPFB isn't immune to anything. Congress has the power to change laws it passes at any time.
I do have to hand it to President Obama, he has made far less recess appointments than other presidents.
Also, two words you used to use a lot come to mind: "sour grapes"
Quote from: nathanm on January 05, 2012, 01:06:09 PM
Gaspar, are you really that stupid or are you just trolling? CPFB isn't immune to anything. Congress has the power to change laws it passes at any time.
I think I must be stupid. I was under the impression that the CPFB was funded under the Federal Reserve, and while congress may have the ability to vote a "stay" on issues it is not granted oversight.
I am also under the obviously stupid impression that almost all subsections of the bill related to appropriation of funds for the CPFB says this:
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry out this subsection.
Since the director's primary responsibility is to ensure compliance amount financial institutions, it will be necessary to develop his own "police force" For this the director has the ability to hire an unlimited number of employees for whatever compensation he wishes to pay them. He can also contract with as many outside private and public sector agencies for what ever price he wishes. He must get approval from no one for these positions which makes him more powerful than the FBI, CIA, NSA, or even the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority!
CONTRACTING AUTHORITY- The Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection is authorized to utilize, contract with, act through, or compensate any person or agency in order to carry out this subsection.
I have this bad habit of reading the bills. I know this makes me stupid in the eyes of a liberal, and I am sorry for that.
You must be since you can't grasp the simple concept of Congress changing a law even as you advocate for the law to be changed. That ability is the strongest form of oversight that can possibly exist. Congress cannot pass a law preventing itself from future (Constitutional) action.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 05, 2012, 01:54:10 PM
I do have to hand it to President Obama, he has made far less recess appointments than other presidents.
Aaaaaand that's because Congress has been in pro forma session since the 2010 midterms.
Quote from: nathanm on January 05, 2012, 02:29:34 PM
You must be since you can't grasp the simple concept of Congress changing a law even as you advocate for the law to be changed. Congress cannot pass a law preventing itself from future (Constitutional) action.
I understand that, but when you create a fiefdom with this kind of power, it becomes very difficult to ever change. Under this bill the CPFB may not be very susceptible to lobby power, however it will very quickly become it's own powerful lobby filled with highly paid public union labor, and with the ability to regulate almost any sector of the economy it pleases through the banks. This centralizes so much power it's unimaginable. We are giving the Federal Reserve it's own police force. Can you imagine what that means? Unchecked police powers always evolve into tyranny.
When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. – Thomas Jefferson
It took about 150 years, starting with a Bill of Rights that reserved to the states and the people all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government, to produce a Supreme Court willing to rule that growing corn to feed to your own hogs is interstate commerce and can therefore be regulated by Congress. – David Friedman
In the United States we have, in effect, two governments ... We have the duly constituted Government ... Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution. – Congressman Wright Patman
Quote from: we vs us on January 05, 2012, 02:41:05 PM
Aaaaaand that's because Congress has been in pro forma session since the 2010 midterms.
Actually that's not at all true. The longest recent Pro Formas were in the senate from October of 2008 to January of 2009 led by Harry Reid. President Bush felt compelled to honor constitutional authority of the Senate. Many believe that weakness was part of the impetus that spurred the birth of the Tea Party movement.
He obviously doesn't understand this is precisely how government irreversibly metastasizes. In spite of claims about shrinking government payroll, it's still far larger than it needs to be. We keep creating new bureaucracies to deal with the inefficiencies or the outright failure of other government oversight agencies and not dismantling the old agencies in the process. It's ridiculous duplication of duties but it sure does gain votes.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 05, 2012, 02:50:46 PM
He obviously doesn't understand this is precisely how government irreversibly metastasizes. In spite of claims about shrinking government payroll, it's still far larger than it needs to be. We keep creating new bureaucracies to deal with the inefficiencies or the outright failure of other government oversight agencies and not dismantling the old agencies in the process. It's ridiculous duplication of duties but it sure does gain votes.
It is the way of the walk.
Sure has filled in some airtime.
http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/375385/ (http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/375385/)
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/05/the_lawless_obama_regime (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/05/the_lawless_obama_regime)
http://cnsnews.com/blog/patrick-burke/mark-levin-we-have-constitutional-crisis (http://cnsnews.com/blog/patrick-burke/mark-levin-we-have-constitutional-crisis)
Apparently a central american dictator has taken over the Whitehouse.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 05, 2012, 02:50:46 PM
He obviously doesn't understand this is precisely how government irreversibly metastasizes. In spite of claims about shrinking government payroll, it's still far larger than it needs to be. We keep creating new bureaucracies to deal with the inefficiencies or the outright failure of other government oversight agencies and not dismantling the old agencies in the process. It's ridiculous duplication of duties but it sure does gain votes.
It's not duplication. OCC and the Fed have never really taken up the mantle of consumer protection. They deal in capital ratios and risk, not sleazy lending. The FTC would have authority in the area, but the executive branch has long held the position that the FTC doesn't get to regulate the practices of banks. States tried to fill in the gap, but under Bush the federal-level regulators declared any attempt by the states to regulate banks to fall afoul of federal authority. Moreover, the CPFB has regulatory authority over nonbank financial services, which were previously completely unregulated on the federal level.
You may have missed it, Conan, but OTS ceased to exist a few months back, so we are in fact eliminating some existing agencies with responsibility in the area.
the CFPB has already started the hiring blitz.
You can be an "Invitations Coordinator" for $102K and get 3 weeks of vacation with full benefits right off the bat.
Sounds like a very important position, everyone should apply!
http://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/306225500
Or, you can be a sysadmin for $149K
http://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/306418000
These are awesome jobs and they seem to be paying about double their private sector equivalent.
Administrative Assistants are kickin $105K
http://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/306320300
Quote from: Gaspar on January 06, 2012, 12:42:18 PM
the CFPB has already started the hiring blitz.
These are awesome jobs and they seem to be paying about double their private sector equivalent.
I imagine they have to attract enough people to be able to weed out certain folks that just blurt out make believe on poilitical threads.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 06, 2012, 12:42:18 PM
the CFPB has already started the hiring blitz.
You can be an "Invitations Coordinator" for $102K and get 3 weeks of vacation with full benefits right off the bat.
Sounds like a very important position, everyone should apply!
http://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/306225500
Or, you can be a sysadmin for $149K
http://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/306418000
These are awesome jobs and they seem to be paying about double their private sector equivalent.
Administrative Assistants are kickin $105K
http://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/306320300
But it's only a few hundred thousand here and there. It's not like it adds up into trillions of debt or anything.
Nahh. . .and it's good job creation. They have a facilities management supervisor spot for $187K that looks comfy.
And, since it's government, you don't have to worry about being fired, unless you kill someone.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 06, 2012, 01:04:02 PM
Nahh. . .and it's good job creation. They have a facilities management supervisor spot for $187K that looks comfy.
And, since it's government, you don't have to worry about being fired, unless you kill someone.
Well, even then I'm sure they will suspend you with pay pending the outcome of your trial in three years.
I can see someone doesn't understand the concept of a range. Or he does and is taking a page from Fox's playbook on how to present information accurately.
Also, at least for the job I'd be mostly qualified for, the salary seems perfectly normal. A little high for Tulsa, but about right or even a little low for DC. People with strong virtualization experience don't come cheap. Throw in the VoIP and DBMS administration and it's no wonder why the salary is so high. In most large orgs that would be three separate people each making around $100k.
Quote from: nathanm on January 06, 2012, 01:37:41 PM
I can see someone doesn't understand the concept of a range. Or he does and is taking a page from Fox's playbook on how to present information accurately.
Also, at least for the job I'd be mostly qualified for, the salary seems perfectly normal. A little high for Tulsa, but about right or even a little low for DC. People with strong virtualization experience don't come cheap. Throw in the VoIP and DBMS administration and it's no wonder why the salary is so high. In most large orgs that would be three separate people each making around $100k.
Shoot, think how much salary is being saved by all the appts being blocked by GOP congress. More than enough to pay for these guys.
I should note that I meant the salary seems high for the purported job title, not that it seems high relative to the specified duties.
Quote from: nathanm on January 06, 2012, 01:52:38 PM
I should note that I meant the salary seems high for the purported job title, not that it seems high relative to the specified duties.
Except that you probably get to hire five flunkies when you convince them that one person's work should be shared over five people.