Home | About | Donate

Consumer Protection Agency's New Mission Under Trump? Not Protecting Consumers

Consumer Protection Agency's New Mission Under Trump? Not Protecting Consumers

Jake Johnson, staff writer

The Trump administration continued its relentless effort to defang the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) on Monday by proposing massive budget cuts to an already underfunded agency and releasing a new mission statement that completely abandons the bureau's previous commitment to protecting consumers from predatory corporations.

Forget the US government! It is the enemy of Life, Earth and Cosmos.

The US government is owned by capitalist oligarchs. They do not make real money. They steal money with military pirates out of the pentagon and save money by writing laws that let them pollute Earth and give cancer to people.

The US government is very bad. Bad, bad, bad. It has got to go for the good of Life.


Once again, the law is clear and this rotten person should not be running the CFPB, so how is anything he is doing legal? Are there any lefty lawyers out there working on this? Recently, the Democratic leaders had a big get together with tons lobbyists, the DCCC has been sticking its loser nose in primaries to back corrupt politicians and many Democrats recently voted to deregulate financial capital. So that is the “opposition”, that is the “resistance”, and that is the problem. They all need to be thrown out of power.


Eyes on that corruption thing again? Must be Democrats, right? Or, it could be a rightwing judge at work:

Frankly, Cordray screwed up by not appointing English sooner, though that might not have stopped Trump anyway.

Why is Trump holding this Executive Order (or whatever it is) the wrong way? Good grief, he can’t even do that right.

1 Like

I want all these stupid, greedy fucks on the other side of the dirt!!


Dear American Consumers, It has come to our attention that all good laws, rules, etc that are for the greater good are methodically being dismantled. You are on your own. One Solution? Save your money, close your wallets to bad foods, materials, etc, and open your wallets and minds to support life sustaining business practices and products (such as whole plant based foods, renewable energy, local businesses, made in America products, efc… and life affirming people and politicians (however rare). This I call the " individual’s revolution" that anyone can do.


Since this administration’s goal is to protect the Corporations rights and “not” the Consumers, the CFPB must be correctly named: the


1 Like

Don’t waste the time digging a hole.

Let the insects feast on them.

1 Like

Corporate Protection Bureau.

Bummer. Can it not be challenged? I also didn’t say that him being in charge of the CFPB was the Democrats’ fault. Corruption is on them, being an ineffective and conservative party is on them (especially when we need deep structural changes), and the Democrats nominating a bad candidate like Clinton is on them. If they didn’t, we likely wouldn’t be in this position. But what can they do after their incompetence and corruption got us this particular government? Yes, we’re all stuck with this crap, and since the Democrats refuse to change and are happy to lose as long as their big money donors keep on giving them bribes, I don’t expect anything to radically change any time soon. Even if the Democrats actually gain power in 2018, what exactly is their plan? My god, the types of candidates the DCCC, the DNC and those in charge of the party prefer let it be known that after they get into office they will immediately work with the right wing, which they call being “bi-partisan”. Essentially, vote for us, and we’ll make sure the right wing’s crappy ideas are at least half of what will be implemented, and we won’t do anything our large donors don’t approve of. Even if they are given power, what exactly will they do with that power policy wise? Please, explain it to me.

That is unless the Democrats radically change or something better emerges. However, a Democrat recently said that we were stuck with the horrible Republican tax plan for the next 30 years. No vision needed, just be less bad than Trump, and let the left “whine”, right?


That was John Tester from Montanna. To give him his due, he was acknowledging the reality unless there’s a seachange in the electorate. Since Reagan, there hasn’t been, for the most part. We can dream of something different, but for a brief bit, Republicans have controlled Congress for going on 30 years. And, they’ve only gotten more conservative, not less. That what happens after a revolution like the one Reagan wrought.

The problem I have with the argument is that a large percentage of the public doesn’t vote. In fact, distance from the government and non-participation in elections has gone hand in hand with the right wing revolution. Turnout for midterm races is such that a winning candidate will sometimes have support from 15-20% of the population when they enter office, sometimes less. Is it certain that left wing ideas would improve the situation? No, but in a country where wages for most haven’t grown since the election of Reagan while the costs of everything from college education, housing, and healthcare have been exponentially growing, year after year after year, I would imagine a set of ideas that actually addresses these things may work better than the types of policies Clinton has long supported and the types of failed policies those in charge of the Democratic Party (and their donors) prefer. That is a big reason why the left’s ideas are now widely popular, while the left itself doesn’t exist in large parts of the country. The status quo policies have led to misery for a large percentage of the population. Given all of this, is it possible that a choice between a right winger (that guarantees a very sharp and quick decline in living standards, increased corruption, destruction of the commons, etc.) and a “centrist” Democrat (someone that will basically support policies that lead to all of that as well, just a little less so) is a better electoral strategy than a right winger versus someone with actual solutions, someone willing to actually address the challenges facing working and poor people? I don’t think so, not in 2018 and beyond. But I think those running the Democratic Party would rather lose with people like Manchin than win with people like Sanders. Does the Democratic Party, when they make their arguments supporting more of the same, take into account that a large percentage of the populace simply doesn’t vote, and that it could win by giving them a reason to vote by supporting policies their donors don’t approve of? Or, does it simply chase around the three dozen “moderates” it thinks will win them elections, as if it is 1992 forever, and ignore the fact that a large percentage of people don’t vote? I often feel like working people and the left expect things of the Democrats that are no longer possible, the party is not interested and will not change, unless the left completely removes those in charge. Not any easier than forming a third party, so why bother trying to fix something so utterly broken?

We live in a world of inversion. When we understand that we can get somewhere. When they say “protect” - they mean “destroy.” When they say “peace” they mean “war.” Their “security” is our “insecurity.” When they say they are telling the truth - they are lying. This is a world right out of “Animal Farm.” They have no principles, no integrity and no honor. It is all about money and power.


A lot of people don’t vote for a variety of reasons. I posted a Post article and a big reason, via polling, is just pure inconvenience. If it’s a pain in the ass to vote, you’ve got to work, you are less likely to do so. Assuming it’s because people aren’t progressive enough isn’t something I put a lot of stalk into by the data. I mean, Russ Feingold lost Wisconsin by more than Hillary. That said, I do agree that I’d like to see more candidates say “so what?” when they’re hit with the socialized medicine attack. Might as well try. We’ve got to turn the Reagan Revolution around at some point.

With their judges in place, they don’t worry about the law.
We need an example, a few swing lifelessly from the gallows would do it.

Sorry, but going along to get along is not a revolution.
A revolution will be ugly and it will be bloody. The next 2 elections will tell if this our last resort.
I’m hopeful it isn’t, but that hope fades with every passing day.

It is very important for us all to realize that we have been in a revolutionary period since 1980. The revolution has brought power and almost total control to the neo-liberal right wing agenda. The changes this has brought about are revolutionary and devastating to our nation and the world. The time has come to end this revolution!

Historians don’t call it the Reagan Revolution for nothing.

I don’t expect people to support something like single payer because they are ideologically on the left. Over 60% of the country now supports single payer and I don’t think a large portion of that support is ideological in nature. People don’t agree with the left on policy positions because of ideology, they in fact often do so despite their stated ideology. Seems to me that provides an opening for the left, people are often on the ideological left without realizing it, but that’s another story. They support the policy simply because they think it is in their interest, and it is. I don’t think people often care about ideology, they want solutions to problems they face, especially those that are structural in nature that can only be solved through policy. The solutions are simply not being offered to them. What is being offered to them, the range of “acceptable opinion” among the establishment, is inferior to what the left offers and is not nearly enough. I also think it is a mistake to think of this in regards to some parts of the country being potentially turned off by the left. Yeah, the Democrats might lose some people and some elections if they moved to the left, but they and every party loses and gains people whatever they do. What we know is that the set of policies that have dominated the Democratic Party for decades now are resulting in the party losing more support than it is gaining. They’ve been completely wiped out nationally under the watch of Clinton type of Democrats, so if the concern is turning off people more than attracting them, the status quo should be dead on arrival. The problem now is that those in charge of your party simply don’t seem to give a damn. The party is their piggy bank, their access to power, and democratizing the party and letting it move to the left and towards policies the population wants (but their donors don’t) harms them. That is the end of the story really. The only way to save the Democrats is to cut the parasites loose, that is the politicians and their donors. Let them go and moderate the other damn party, which is in need of moderation. If they maintain control, which they seem to want to, your party has no hope. It may gain some power here or there, but not as much as it would by moving to the left, and even if they do, what policies will they implement? The Democrats have no coherent vision, and they will continue to lack that because the party is a “big tent” and has to appease Joe Manchin (well, his donors, he’s just a good little doggie and does what they say) and people like Sanders, and there is little that they can agree upon. So, if they gain power, the right wing will either win outright or their crappy ideas will be a large chunk of the policies we’ll see, and things will continue to get worse as a result, unless the parasites are removed.