Senator Shelby Issues Warning About Consumer Czar
Richard Cordray, President Obama’s pick to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, won approval from the Senate Banking Committee last week on a party-line vote. His confirmation to run the new agency faces fierce opposition from Republicans, who have vowed to block Senate approval until reforms are made to the agency.
source
Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]
I would tell Republicans I would be willing to give in and have a board for the CFBP if they are open to having a board for the Department of Homeland Security instead of one person heading it. TOO MUCH POWER MY ASS!!! :-/
@intrepidorator I sincerely doubt you read the report. You're not even interested in reading the instructions on your tax forms, and that has far more influence on your day to day life than the CBO. The fact is fewer people working does not mean fewer people contributing to the health care act. In fact, according to the same CBO you referenced, more people will be buying insurance (with their own money) because of the act. Primarily because the act mandates them to purchase insurance.
@intrepidorator Oh really? So the guy who can't figure out how federal income taxes work, all of a sudden has the intellectual heft to analyze economic studies put out by the CBO? Let me help you out. Elmendorf, the director of the CBO did not say that Obamacare would cost 800,000 jobs. He said that employment (which is very different than unemployment) would be reduced by 0.5%. Why?
Because some people will no longer have to work just to get health insurance. Read the fucking report.
@intrepidorator It's funny that you're calling me stupid when I'm the only person in this conversation that has provided facts and references to support facts. You said one reason people aren't hiring was because of "job killing Obamacare." You have not study to back up this claim. You say it's because of future tax raises, again with no study to back up this claim. You said that a raise would hurt your position financially when the exact opposite is true.
But I'm the idiot? Ok.
@intrepidorator Are you trolling me? You do realize that what you bring home each week has little to do with what you ultimately pay in taxes right? Your withholdings (the number of deductions you claimed on your W-4) determines how much is withheld each week from your paycheck. When you do your taxes each year, you end up either paying or getting a refund based on how much was withheld from your weekly check.
And yes I know wtf I'm talking about, I worked in payroll for YEARS.
@intrepidorator Google, "Regulatory Uncertainty: A phony explanation for our jobs problem" and read that entire article. That's one source.
And please for the love of God, don't do your own taxes because you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. For a married person filing jointly who earns 17,000, the bracket is 10%. If you get a 1% raise the bracket is 15% FOR THE AMOUNT OVER 17,000. So your taxes jump to 1,726 a total of $26. LOOK IT UP if you don't believe me.
@intrepidorator Actually, no. Randomized, anonymous surveys (scientific polls) find that most businesses are not hiring because of poor sales. There is not one unbiased survey you can find that says businesses aren't hiring because of what you call Obamacare.
Secondly, our tax system does not work that way. It simply doesn't. There is not one raise you can get where your tax burden will exceed your raise. Not one. You're either ignorant of that fact, or you're lying.
@intrepidorator "job killing Obamacare" – back to the fact-less talking points I guess. Please explain to me how a raise would hurt your position economically. I promise you I can understand it. I aced multivariable calculus and linear algebra in college, I'm positive I can understand the math behind your predicament. I'd love to hear how making more than $23,000/year would HURT your economic situation.
If Republicans want a board for the CFPB, while we're at it we should replace the directors of the CIA and FBI with a bi-partisan 12 member super-committee!
You know… like the one we have working on the debt crisis! CHEERS :-)!!!!
reduce spending first, then we'll talk about revenue. the federal gov is a junkie-they have spent all SS trust funds, Native American trust funds and refuse to reduce its' own budgets.
-we need a "consumer protection bureau" to protect us from the lunatics running the asylum in DC. the idiot harry reid said yesterday that "private sector jobs are just fine" and that public sector jobs need to be added.
@intrepidorator Progressive tax rates don't "punish" success. I have to ask, are you holding yourself back from making more than $23,000/year because you're worried about higher tax rates? That's preposterous on its face. Moreover, our tax rates used to be much higher, with top rates going to 91%. People still strived to be millionaires even though the gov't would take 91 cents of each dollar they made over 1 million.
I don't advocate taxes that high, but 40% isn't going to kill us.
@intrepidorator Well, imho they don't pay more. The rich pay the same tax rate on their first $8500 as the poor do on their first $8500. They pay the same rate on the next 34,500 as the rest of us. Higher tax rates only apply to the amount of income over a certain amount. Both you and Kim Kardashian pay the same rate on the first $379,150 you make. But she pays a higher rate on anything above that (35%).
There are reasons for the progressiveness.
@intrepidorator I take it back, I was look at 2009 numbers from the tax policy center. 2010 numbers show an increase in taxes for millionaires, though I'm not quite sure why (since there hasn't been any tax increase on either income, payroll, or corporate taxes and in fact both payroll and income taxes have been cut temporarily. I have look into how the Tax Policy Center arrived at those rates.
Still, I disagree that the rich should pay LESS. That's antithetical to fairness.
@intrepidorator Why don't you go look up the effective tax rate of "the rich." They don't pay anywhere near 29% of their income on average.
@coldwaterdick The top 1% pay the majority of taxes due to basic math, not some morality play. Please, do the math yourself. In an economy of 10 people, where 9 make $50,000/year and one makes $1 million/year. Let those 9 pay 30% in taxes and the millionaire pay 15% in taxes. Guess what, the millionaire will still end up paying 52% of the taxes even though his tax rate is lower. You call that fair?
And I don't consider Paris Hilton a titan of industry.
@shalcall
Not only do these top 1% pay the majority of the taxes you seem to take for granted, apparently they represent the top 1% thinkers, movers and shakers – what % do you fit in and what makes you think anyone would benefit by not protecting consumers?
More bullshit propaganda from Heritage in favor of the top 1% of income earners. Shelby wants to weaken the consumer financial protection bureau? and make it more friendly to the companies from which it is supposed to protect the consumer?
This guy just doesn't get it.
@sixgenmichigan The problem stems from how both sides of the aisle do things in WA DC.
The problem is that members of congress sell out to the highest bidder, whether that is unions, corporations or some other special interest. They ignore their oaths to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. They are corrupted by their own power, and have no regard for the principles of the free market.
Turn them out, knaves all.
So Shelby is the senior ranking member of the house banking committee? Does that mean he is to blame for the banks getting massive bailouts?
No friend of the free market, he.
Nice try, guys, but Cordray is eventually going to be director and you continue to harm yourselves in the eyes of the public by taking up this fight. It's in your best interest to allow this one to slip away and fight another day on another issue.
That's how we do it here in Washington, no matter what side of the aisle you sit on.