November 29, 2017

"Busy day at the CFPB. Digging into the details."


I'm glad Mick Mulvaney — who won a big lawsuit yesterday — has such an unprepossessing office.

That's the first time I've used the word "unprepossessing" in the entire 50,000+ posts on this blog. I did quote it once, in "A 'balding, blunt, unprepossessing, listed-at-5-foot-7 policy wonk would be a strong contender to take on President Barack Obama...." That was in 2010, and the unprepossessing guy — "the un-Obama" — was Mitch Daniels, whom I'd hope to see get the GOP nomination in 2012. I was interested in moving away from adulation of an icon and toward humility and modesty and workmanlike ordinariness. That didn't happen in 2012 and it sure didn't happen in 2016. I don't know why our politics has gotten so over-inflated and dramatic. I can't answer that. I'm just saying I like Mick Mulvaney's office. And by "office," I mean the physical place, not the abstraction of power.

99 comments:

dreams said...

Trump continues to kick liberal butt.

Crimso said...

"I don't know why our politics has gotten so over-inflated and dramatic."

Because government at all levels has amassed so much power over our everyday lives that it really is a big deal who wins (and who loses). Don't want it so "over-inflated and dramatic?" Makes the stakes much lower.

Fabi said...

So much winning!

jwl said...

I work from home and I have two offices; I keep them somewhat tidy but I have to have some clutter or else it bugs me - too clean office seems sterile to me and I don't like it.

Big Mike said...

People who don't work with the government would be surprised at how cheaply furnished government offices are. If you think the FBI offices depicted in "Bones" and "X Files" are typical of real FBI offices then you are in for a shock. Other agencies are just as bad.

Comanche Voter said...

The man showed up; had a bag of donuts for coworkers, and went to work. End of story---or it should be, but won't be.

Bay Area Guy said...

Why do we need a CFPB, again?

William said...

Who wants to talk about CFPB when there are all these great sex scandals? Ditto with net neutrality. If North Korea nukes California that might be worth discussing for a day or two, especially as it impacts the Harvey Weinstein and other Hollywood investigations.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

The left think they own us and cannot be fired. Fascists.

Fernandistien said...

A neat, uncluttered office is unappealing ?

mockturtle said...

The last time I recall reading the adjective 'unprepossessing' it was relating to Edward VIII's genitals.

Nonapod said...

I'm sure we could safely eliminate the CFPB without any serious consequences other than the release of a few braindead former bureaucrats out into the world (who would doubtless have to be put on social welfare since they're completely unemployable in the private sector).

There's no shortage of Federal agencies to be cut:
List of federal agencies in the United States

Fernandistien said...

mockturtle said...
The last time I recall reading the adjective 'unprepossessing' it was relating to Edward VIII's genitals.


I don't think Althouse knows what the word means.

"I'm glad Mick Mulvaney — who won a big lawsuit yesterday — has such an awful grisly grotesque hideous horrid unseemly unsightly appalling beastly deformed disfigured foul office."

mockturtle said...

Right, Nonapod! My mother always used to say, "Just let me at that budget!". The 'cutting' over the years has been largely attrition and 'across the board' reductions, which is no way to do it. Whole agencies need to be removed and not replaced.

AJ Lynch said...

"I don't know why our politics has gotten so over-inflated and dramatic."

Perhaps because the media ignores stuff unless it happens in NYC, DC or the Left Coast? And they tend to think all change must come from the White House and the Imperial City?

Original Mike said...

Blogger Crimso said..."Because government at all levels has amassed so much power over our everyday lives that it really is a big deal who wins (and who loses). Don't want it so "over-inflated and dramatic?" Makes the stakes much lower."

THIS. THIS. THIS. THIS. THIS. THIS. THIS. THIS.

Drago said...

Bay Area Guy: "Why do we need a CFPB, again?"

To shake down large financial institutions in order to funnel money to left wing activist groups.

Drago said...

Oh, right.

Another Trump win. And another win for freedom. And another win for "Defunding the Left".

Again, as always, LLR Chuck hardest hit.

steve uhr said...

If the agency is unnecessary then it should be eliminated through legislation. As long as it exists it must continue to fulfill its mission to protect consumers.

mockturtle said...

As long as it exists it must continue to fulfill its mission to protect consumers.

As long as it exists it must continue to fulfill its mission to fund leftist activists. FIFY.

steve uhr said...

What s the evidence that the agency funnels money to leftist organizations?

madAsHell said...

I don't know why our politics has gotten so over-inflated and dramatic.

Newspapers are going out of business. It's an attempt to remain relevant.

Achilles said...

steve uhr said...
“What s the evidence that the agency funnels money to leftist organizations?“

It is a leftist organization.

It was created largely by fauxcahauntas.

It’s mission is to regulate and fine smaller banks until they are uncompetitive and can be scooped up by the big democrat bank donors.

It has an additional mission to keep banks from lending to small businesses so the big corporate donors have less competition.

It is a national socialist dream.

mockturtle said...

Steve Uhr asks: What s the evidence that the agency funnels money to leftist organizations?

Fines collected by the agency were donated to activist groups. Look it up.

Unknown said...

I don't know why our politics has gotten so over-inflated and dramatic.

"We have always known that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. It's worse now, because capture of government is so much more important than it once was. There was a time when there was enough freedom that it hardly mattered which brand of crooks ran government. That has not been true for a long time — not during most of your lifetimes, and for much of mine — and it will probably never be true again." -- Jerry Pournelle

Matthew Sablan said...

"As long as it exists it must continue to fulfill its mission to protect consumers."

-- Why? Why should an organization, if it has no purpose, continue to drain resources from useful organizations? Every dollar spent on a wasteful organization, which this one looks like, is a dollar less spent for social services, defense or other necessities of government.

Why should some kid starve or some servicemember not get body armor to fund this?

Matthew Sablan said...

"I don't know why our politics has gotten so over-inflated and dramatic."

-- I blame Florida, Gore and the left's inability to concede elections.

Matthew Sablan said...

[Seriously though, I blame the modern, digital age where outrage, whatever your politics, is only a click away.]

rehajm said...

What s the evidence that the agency funnels money to leftist organizations?

Leftie squealing for starters.

rehajm said...

It was created by lefties and is unaccountable to Congress...

Matthew Sablan said...

"It was created by lefties and is unaccountable to Congress."

-- Wait. Why is it unaccountable to Congress? Ignore that first part -- why should ANY ORGANIZATION not have Congressional, Executive or Judicial oversight?

wwww said...


I don't know why our politics has gotten so over-inflated and dramatic.


Yep. For myself, I am beyond annoyed with the drama on both sides of the political spectrum. Lately I've turned off much of the American news. It's tiresome when the domestic political twitter and insult drama seeps into international news. I wonder how many people are tired of the drama? Perhaps there is a critical mass who will be relived and happy to vote for boring politicians.

Other countries choose to elect boring, undramatic politicians. It's quite pleasant.

Chuck said...

Drago said...
Oh, right.

Another Trump win. And another win for freedom. And another win for "Defunding the Left".

Again, as always, LLR Chuck hardest hit.

I straightened you out on this yesterday, you worthless prick. I never once defended the CFPB. I know of no Republicans of any consequence who have. When Elizabeth Warren was picked to be the first CFPB Director, Republicans blocked her. Which was before Donald Trump ever had a serious political thought. (Presuming that there has been a time when Donald Trump had a serious thought since then.)

So, more baseless personal-attack trash talk from "Drago."

I do think that on the merits, past the question of a TRO, and in front of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, this will be a difficult and tricky case of federal statutory interpretation. Two federal statutes appear to be in conflict; the (older) Federal Vacancies Act and the (newer) Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB.

Ann Althouse actually knows a bit about federal statutory interpretation. I am looking forward to her analysis at some point.

As opposed to your moronic and mendacious trashtalk, "Drago." Why don't you just thank your lucky stars that the blind draw in the DC Circuit dumped this case into the lap of a Trump-nominated trial judge? I'm actually not much for kneejerk attacks on federal judges based on who nominated them.* But since that became the mantra for the Trump fans who didn't like the way that the Trump immigration EO's were treated in federal courts, I just thought I'd throw that one right back.

*Don't get me wrong; it matters. It matters, a lot, and even more so in the era when Democrats erased the filibuster for Article III judicial nominees. Both sides will be able to nominate harder-edged partisans going forward. In fact, the principal reason I was forced to hold my nose and cast a vote for the 2016 Republican presidential ticket was the future of the federal judiciary. But I just can't resist any opportunity to hold a mirror up to the most devoted personal fans of Trump.

Original Mike said...

Blogger steve uhr said..."What s the evidence that the agency funnels money to leftist organizations?"

You need to broaden your news sources.

traditionalguy said...

Trump trumped them. This totally Un-Constitutional creation was the biggest Obamanation slush fund still on the board. Trump rid us of Climate Control slush funds, but he needs this one gone forever.

Warren wrote this Statute so she has the sole, eternal, control over a separate Government mandated slush fund renewed at will with Mega Fines levied for being bad on whatever business makes any money. She wants her independent Government to function as a Tyranny protected from the elected Congress that was supposed to rule us. It is like a 51st State has declared itself ruler over the other 50 states.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Perhaps there is a critical mass who will be relived and happy to vote for boring politicians."

-- The lack of a President Romney, despite him being proven right about so many things, from Russia to energy policy, shows that this won't happen any time soon.

wwww said...

-- The lack of a President Romney, despite him being proven right about so many things, from Russia to energy policy, shows that this won't happen any time soon.


I wouldn't assume that. It's easy to over-determine political outcomes. And the news chases personality & drama and day by day changes "who is up who is down who said the sick burn oh boy!!!" The news media does not get many consumer eyes or clicks by reporting elections may be determined on GDP or # of years in power of the opposition.

As for Romney's loss, a first term incumbent President has a huge advantage for re-election when he is in power after replacing the opposition party. (Bush to Obama). But after 8 years of the same party in power, in addition to other elements such as the economy, the American electorate generally chooses the opposition party.

Can't recall his name at the moment, but that one political scientist who predicted Trump's win did so on the basis of a bunch of structural elements. Do you remember the guy? He looked at the economy, the number of terms served by the Ds. He ignored the rhetorical, dramatic, and other inflammatory things happening in the election.

Ken B said...

Trump is a threat to the constitution! Proof: he wins in court.

YoungHegelian said...

If the CFPB is immune to Congressional & Executive oversight, as the Dems think, & that's supposed to be a good thing, I think that the Republican Congress & the Trump WH should set about creating more such agencies outside of political oversight. More of a good thing is better, no?

I mean, what could go wrong?

Drago said...

"Bowe Bergdahl Republican" Chuck: "I'm actually not much for kneejerk attacks on federal judges based on who nominated them"

LOL

Keep it up Chuck! Your "formula" is a real "winner"!

readering said...

Did he win lawsuit or just motion?

Drago said...

LLR Chuck expends many many words to avoid saying the obvious: this is a big win for the Trump admin and the country.

That's okay Chuck. Media Matters and MSNBC aren't saying that, so no one expects you to say it either.

Chuck said...

traditionalguy said...
Trump trumped them. This totally Un-Constitutional creation was the biggest Obamanation slush fund still on the board.

Do you, and Ken B, understand that the constitutionality of the CFPB was never even a question? Is this what passes for commentary in TrumpLand?

As for Trump's record on constitutional challenges, he was largely 0-for-everything on his immigration orders. And while I actually side with the Trump Administration on many if not most of the administration's legal cases, they are routinely made more difficult for DoJ/White House counsel/administration lawyers by the stupid shit that Trump does, like Tweeting a new transgender ban in the U.S. military, or his stupid comments that led to an adjournment in the Bowe Bergdahl trial, or Trump's idiotic comments about a ban on all Muslims entering the United States.

Drago said...

readering: "Did he win lawsuit or just motion?"

Mulvaney is sitting in the building and running it.

Even Salon knows it. Not that LLR Chuck would.

Again, as always, LLR Chuck hardest hit.

Drago said...

LLR Chuck: "Do you, and Ken B, understand that the constitutionality of the CFPB was never even a question?"

Yes, but your good pals on the left didn't let that stop them for one minute, did it?

Of course, even commenting on this must be difficult for you as it is clearly overshadowed by stuff you consider "important", like pies and anonymously sourced MSM hit reports.

LOL

Poor Chuck.

And even worse for Chuck, Mulvaney does not apparently have children Chuck can rumor-monger about!

Jill P McMahon said...

Mick Mulvaney aside, could it be that the CFPB, honoring it's service to consumers, opted not to spend the public's money on opulent offices?

Qwinn said...

"Like Tweeting a new transgender ban in the U.S. military"

/facepalm

Ken B said...

Chuck
Your math is wrong. Life long innumerate?
Your logic is wrong g too, I never mentioned the board, but that's less surprising than your inability to count.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

steve uhr said...

What s the evidence that the agency funnels money to leftist organizations?

CFPB Joins Justice In Shaking Down Banks For Democrat Activist Groups

Yancey Ward said...

Mulvaney's first order of business should be to publish the amounts and identity of every single organization and person who got funds from the CFPB- every single one.

buwaya said...

The so far unaddressed category of covered-up scandals are those about financial corruption.

Far more significant than sexual embarrassments.

Qwinn said...

Well, based on "structural elements", Republicans should easily have 58 Senate seats after the 2018 election. 62, if Republicans only win where Trump won and no more.

Yet I keep hearing in every media outlet that Republicans are doomed in 2018. Over and over. When their absolute worst possible scenario has them with 50 senate seats and Pence casting the deciding votes.

I wonder how that keeps happening.

Must be one of those "structural element" thingies.

rehajm said...

Why is it unaccountable to Congress?

CFPB's funding comes directly from the Federal Reserve, not from Congress. CFBPs requests for funds under a cap cannot be denied.

Chuck said...

Drago said...
readering: "Did he win lawsuit or just motion?"

Mulvaney is sitting in the building and running it.

Even Salon knows it. Not that LLR Chuck would.

Again, as always, LLR Chuck hardest hit.

Wrong again.

I'd be the first to agree that the win in the district court in English v. Trump was important. Next time you wonder about my view you might think to ask me before you categorize me.

And before anyone questions it, let's be clear that there is a case pending -- another, earlier, separate case from English v. Trump -- concerning the constitutionality of the act. A three-judge panel ruled against the CFPB, but the ruling is stayed pending an en banc review that is currently underway.

Now, a question for Drago and all the rest: Weren't these threadjacking personal attacks supposed to stop a long time ago?

Drago said...

You have to give our LLR credit. He's definitely giving it his all in the "lets talk about something other than this victory" tactic.

Oddly enough, just like the lefties are doing elsewhere today!

Darn it! LLR Chuck "accidentally" aligned with dem talking points again!

You know, just based on the law of large numbers, at least once now LLR Chuck should have come down on the conservative side.

Hope springs eternal: Tomorrow for sure!

Drago said...

"Bowe Bergdahl Republican" Chuck: "Next time you wonder about my view you might think to ask me before you categorize me."

LOL

I never have to wonder. I simply have to mosey on over to a couple select websites to know perfectly well what you will be saying and what you think long before you write it here.

rehajm said...

Mulvaney's office should resemble a polar bear in a snowstorm. With his eyes closed...

I find his office ostentatious and obscene.

Drago said...

Early Chuck: "As for Trump's record on constitutional challenges, he was largely 0-for-everything on his immigration orders."

Later Chuck: "Weren't these threadjacking personal attacks supposed to stop a long time ago?"

Discuss.

Jeff Weimer said...

To be fair, Ann, it's only his second day on the job. Not much time to collect Tchotchkes.

Chuck said...

Drago said...
...

Poor Chuck.

And even worse for Chuck, Mulvaney does not apparently have children Chuck can rumor-monger about!

Why did you raise that subject?

Lawyers for the Trump family have declared categorically that Baron Trump is not autistic:
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/melania-trump-threatens-lawsuit-over-barron-autism-video-w452617/

Who am I to doubt them?

Drago said...

LLR Chuck proves he doesn't rumor-monger about children by continuing to rumor-monger about children.

Because "courage".

Matthew Sablan said...

You know what would be great?

One thread Chuck comments in that doesn't self-destruct.

That would be great. Could you all do that for us? Not destroy another thread to beat the dead, reanimated and brain smashed horse that is "some posters don't like Chuck, and Chuck doesn't like those posters?"

You know, so we can focus on the actual problem: That Democrats are attempting a limited, literal coup against the Trump administration's authority?

Jeff Weimer said...

@ Jill - That's not counting the $200M they spent renovating the building for the prominent Democrat donor Neil G. Bluhm, *plus* renting it for $12M a year.

Chuck said...

Drago said...
"Bowe Bergdahl Republican" Chuck: "Next time you wonder about my view you might think to ask me before you categorize me."

LOL

I never have to wonder. I simply have to mosey on over to a couple select websites to know perfectly well what you will be saying and what you think long before you write it here.

And nearly without exception, you always get it wrong. Every time you've tried to categorize me up above on this comments page, you have gotten it wrong.

On page after page after page of Althouse comments the pattern is the same; I criticize Trump, and then you launch into a personal attack on me. Most often, you try to categorize me as holding some sort of left-wing/progressive/Democrat view. I never, ever bring your name up first in a comments thread. You always bring me into it in the first instance with an attack on me.

You are the one who is, first and foremost, violating Althouse rules/requests/directives for posting comments. What she does with you is her business. I'd have booted you long ago if I were moderating.

Chuck said...

Drago said...
LLR Chuck proves he doesn't rumor-monger about children by continuing to rumor-monger about children.

Because "courage".

No, you asshole. It is because I wanted to draw attention to your little oblique smear aimed at me. And I am not taking any shit from you, sport.

For the rest of the commentariat; I didn't "rumor-monger" about children. The fact is, many people other than me have suspected that Baron Trump is autistic. A YouTube poster (on the autism spectrum himself) posted a video about it. Trump lawyers threatened him with litigation and he removed it. Rosie O'Donnell (the mother of an adopted autistic child) mentioned it and was contacted by Trump lawyers. US Weekly did a story about both matters and got a cease and desist letter from Trump lawyers. For my part, I posted links to those stories when at the Detroit GOP primary debate, Trump wandered off into a Vaxxer-like statement about vaccine safety. Trump's been an ardent Vaxxer in the past, and then during the transition he met with Vaxxer Extraordinaire Joe Kennedy Jr. And Kennedy came out of the meeting and said that Trump would set up a Presidential Commission on the subject. Before the adults in the Trump campaign quickly walked all of it back.

bgates said...

Do you, and Ken B, understand that the constitutionality of the CFPB was never even a question? Is this what passes for commentary in TrumpLand?

Later:

And before anyone questions it, let's be clear that there is a case pending -- another, earlier, separate case from English v. Trump -- concerning the constitutionality of the act. A three-judge panel ruled against the CFPB

Law is hard.

Robert Cook said...

"Trump continues to kick liberal butt."

Put more accurately, he continues to protect corporate predators.

Robert Cook said...

"People who don't work with the government would be surprised at how cheaply furnished government offices are. If you think the FBI offices depicted in "Bones" and "X Files" are typical of real FBI offices then you are in for a shock. Other agencies are just as bad."

What? You'd prefer your tax dollars spent on making government offices lavish?

brylun said...

Is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau constitutional? The D.C. Circuit says no. Here’s why.

Chuck said...

"Robert F. Kennedy Jr." is the Vaxxer. Not Joe Kennedy Jr. (Who died in action as a pilot in 1944.)

gadfly said...

Mitch Daniels worked near-miracles economically, erasing Indiana's $200 million deficit in 2004 and despite the Great Recession, accomplished a $1.3 billion surplus seven years later.

Andy Ferguson of The Weekly Standard wrote:

He treats waste in government as a moral offense. “Government isn’t a business, and it shouldn’t be run as a business,” he said. “But it can be more like business. It has a lot to learn from businessmen.” Government operates without the market pressures that produce efficiency and increase quality. The challenge for government leaders is to produce those pressures to economize internally, through an act of will. “Never take a dollar from a free citizen through the coercion of taxation without a very legitimate purpose,” he said in an interview last year. “We have a solemn duty to spend that dollar as carefully as possible, because when we took it we diminished that person’s freedom.” When you put it like that, overspending by government seems un-American.

Matthew Sablan said...

“Government isn’t a business, and it shouldn’t be run as a business,” he said. “But it can be more like business. It has a lot to learn from businessmen. ... We have a solemn duty to spend that dollar as carefully as possible, because when we took it we diminished that person’s freedom."

I really like that formation; it gets to my main question whenever the government wants to spend money on something, which I asked above: Why should some kid starve or some servicemember not get body armor to fund this?

Bruce Hayden said...

i see several problems with this agency. First, it was justified on bogus studies and statistics, including those by Fauxhantus Warren. Secondly, it was designed to be unaccountable to both Congress and the President, with a boss who selects his successor with no ability of either Congressional or Executive oversight. Got a leftist operative in there to start, and the idea was that he could perpetuate Dem control over the agency henceforth, regardless of which party controlled either Congress or the Presidency. And Chuck - I think that a very good argument has been made that that setup is not Constitutional. You just can’t have an agency under our Constitution that is unaccountable to any branch of our govt (and gets whatever money it wants, to boot). Unfortunately for the Dems, Trump seems to have out maneuvered them this time around, with his selection moving in (hence this article), and theirs not. And, third, it seems to have mostly been used as a slush fund to fund liberal activist organizations. As noted by others above, the way it operated was to go after financial institutions (usually with questionable claims), then do settlements with them that give most, if not all of the money to leftist organizations under the transparently bogus justification that they somehow represent the injured parties. (And to be fair, the DoJ was engaging in very similar shakedowns, benefitting the same types of leftist organizations, justified the same way).

Robert Cook said...

"Which was before Donald Trump ever had a serious political thought. (Presuming that there has been a time when Donald Trump had a serious thought since then.)"

Hahaha! That's funny. The idea that Trump has ever had or could ever have a serious political thought. But it's not funny, because he's the President, and he can do a lot of damage. It's IDIOCRACY today! (He's not the idiot, though...it's the not-rich people who support him.)

Chuck said...

bgates: "[T]he constitutionality of the CFPB was never even a question" in the case of English v. Trump. I quickly corrected myself because I know that as one of the (happily) most-reviled commenters among the pro-Trump Althouse commentariat, every single word of what I write gets parsed, checked and analyzed. And I wouldn't have it any other way. So yeah, I stand by what I wrote including my being the first to mention PHH Corp. v. CFPB on this page.

Y'all can write whatever you want, as long as you leave me out of it. Because while so many of you seem to care so intently about me, I don't give a rip about any of you.

Robert Cook said...

"Why should some kid starve or some servicemember not get body armor to fund this?"

No kid will starve or service member go without body armor to fund CFPB.

Service members, by the way, would not need body armor if we did not initiate and maintain illegal wars abroad, or if, after having initiated them--as we have and are--we removed ourselves from the battlefronts we have created.

If we cut our War Budget by just 50%, we would still have a larger War Budget than any other country in the world--it's presently larger than the combined War Budgets of nearly every other country in the world, and this is just counting the money we know about, not counting the black budgets of the intelligence agencies, who are part of our war machine). That huge savings could be applied to ensure kids would do better than "not starve," but would have ample to eat. And service members would still not lack for body armor.

buwaya said...

"Service members, by the way, would not need body armor"

Standard military gear these days. Your soldiers need body armor even if they are not deployed. The Germans and Italians and the Spanish and the Dutch have body armor.

Even the Philippine military has body armor now. Granted, they need it more than some others.

buwaya said...

"If we cut our War Budget by just 50%"

It might be that you could, and maintain the same forces you already do. There is tremendous waste in military procurement and management.

Matthew Sablan said...

You think money just falls out of the trees to fund the CFPB or any other organization and could not be better allocated?

Bruce Hayden said...

"People who don't work with the government would be surprised at how cheaply furnished government offices are. If you think the FBI offices depicted in "Bones" and "X Files" are typical of real FBI offices then you are in for a shock. Other agencies are just as bad."

No, I don’t want our tax money going to pay for lavish offices. Govt employees anymore tend to make more than they would make in private industry (clearly true for clerical, but arguably true for even professional workers when you compare apples to apples, and consider class rank), and have greater job security and better pensions.

My kid has been talking to several national labs for when they (hopefully) get their PhD this year, and this is one of the things that I warned them about. I spent 15 years in software engineering, first as a govt employee (Census), then as a contractor, and during that time, spent time in better than a dozen federal govt facilities for better than a half dozen agencies. And that was the constant - basic utilitarian furniture. The good ones had industrial carpeting. The others had linoleum. No surprise, probably the worst, the most soulless, was the IRS. But the one thing that I didn’t have to deal with were cubicles, the scourge of the electronics and computer industries. Even for their patent attorneys in some cases (e.g. HP). I do remember thinking that it was a nice upgrade to get newer beige metal desks from the WW II era gray steel desks I had at Census and NOAA in Suitland, MD.

Matthew Sablan said...

The point is that, if you want to justify spending the money on something like the CFPB, you can't be having shortfalls in places where people are literally dying, like veteran's hospitals, or not receiving needed funds, like several of the social safety nets that exist. The money that goes to CFPB *could* have gone to make sure a veteran didn't languish in a non-existing waiting line or that we had better funding for public defenders so an innocent person wasn't browbeat into a plea deal. Is the value we're getting for the money spent on the CFPB the best value for the country? Maybe; maybe not. But we should actually *ask* that question.

Chuck said...

If we cut our War Budget by just 50%, we would still have a larger War Budget than any other country in the world...

With all due respect, sir, I think that if we have an adequate Defense budget, we might be able to go with a zero-dollar War budget.

Since we did away with "the War Department," we haven't again had a declared war. There is obviously a lot more to that, I'd be the first to admit. And like Rand Paul, I think we might have fewer and shorter conflicts with more decisive outcomes if we held tighter to standards of Congress declaring war in order to facilitate any military action. Still, I'm not ready to conflate "war" with "defense."

And now the usual commentariat suspects can accuse me of leftism. Like, uh, Senator Rand Paul...?

Bruce Hayden said...

“It might be that you could, and maintain the same forces you already do. There is tremendous waste in military procurement and management.”

It’s the government, which means that it can’t do anything efficiently or cost effectively. The problem, of course, is that the same things that have been caught incorporated into out procurement systems to prevent awarding contracts to cronies are the ones that drive up the costs so much. And the more money that is being spent, the more money there is to be made by circumventing this process, and the more stringent the process has to be to prevent even more abuse.

Clyde said...

I would be dumbfounded if that was the same office of the previous CFPB Director. Most bureaucrats live for the status of having a huge corner office with an enormous desk. But then Director Mulvaney comes not to praise the CFPB but to bury it.

EDH said...

He forgot to roll-up his sleeves and even has cufflinks.

A clear indication he's working for the 1%.

rehajm said...

You think money just falls out of the trees to fund the CFPB or any other organization and could not be better allocated?

The origin of CFPB's budget is disturbingly close to literally falling out of a tree.

Qwinn said...

"Dodd-Frank"

Lest we forget...

Dodd: Raped a waitress with Ted Kennedy. Said at Robert Byrd's birthday party that he would've been the right man to lead the country at any time in history *explicitly including the Civil War*. Yes, if only the US had been led by a Grand Kleagle of the KKK during the Civil War, things woulda turned out better.

Frank: Ran a gay underage prostitution ring in his basement.

Consequences: None. Whatsoever.

Darrell said...

It's Barron Trump, Chuck. You ignorant slut.

Clyde said...

I mentioned SNL's "Point-Counterpoint" in an earlier post's comment and now I see the tagline in full! LOL!

wwww said...



oh. yea. Donald Trump is in my BBC international news site again with more stupid tweets. Front page.

Sure hope someone in the White House is keeping the eye on the wheel in regards to N. Korea.

Chuck said...

Darrell said...
It's Barron Trump, Chuck. You ignorant slut.

That's right. Barron. Two r's. My bad.

And while we're at it, let's recall the Huffington Post's warning us not to speculate about Barron. We should not engage in such speculation unless and until a formal professional diagnosis was announced publicly. As HuffPo's Karen Jeynes pointed out, "[It is] worrying... that people feel fully entitled to speculate about whether or not somebody has a disability. Your very speculation is shockingly ableist behaviour that damages not only Barron Trump but every single person who is on the spectrum. By speculating, you are enforcing society's desire to label anything which does not strictly adhere to "normal". You are othering everybody on the spectrum. You are making it clear that you consider them acceptable targets for ridicule and attack."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/karen-jeynes/stop-your-dangerous-speculation-about-barron-trump_a_21660760/

And that too is right! We should not engage in "ableist behaviour." It hurts everyone on the spectrum. We need to avoid a particular definition of "normal." We should not be "othering" people who don't adhere to old and ableist definitions of normality.

Kthanxbye.

Oh and thanks as always to "Drago" for bringing this up for clarification.

Curious George said...

"Matthew Sablan said...
You know what would be great?

One thread Chuck comments in that doesn't self-destruct.

That would be great. Could you all do that for us? Not destroy another thread to beat the dead, reanimated and brain smashed horse that is "some posters don't like Chuck, and Chuck doesn't like those posters?"

You know, so we can focus on the actual problem: That Democrats are attempting a limited, literal coup against the Trump administration's authority?"

You don't really think that we are a solution to anything do you?

Robert Cook said...

"With all due respect, sir, I think that if we have an adequate Defense budget, we might be able to go with a zero-dollar War budget."

We haven't fought a war of defense since WWII. Our wars are wars of offense.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

As with the EPA, he's busy taking the word "protection" out of both departments' titles and replacing it with "destruction."

The consumer financial destruction bureau. Bush destroyed consumers and obviously these two knuckleheads would also like to get their chance.

glenn said...

“I don't know why our politics has gotten so over-inflated and dramatic.”

Because we have a bunch of people who are overinflated and dramatic.

Drago said...

"Bowe Bergdahl Republican" Chuck: "Oh and thanks as always to "Drago" for bringing this up for clarification."

LLR Chuck pulls the "Wesley" card (from Forrest Gump): Barron? Things got a little out of hand. It’s just this blog war and that lying son of a bitch Drago...I would never hurt you. You know that."

LOL

Drago said...

TTR: "Bush destroyed consumers and obviously these two knuckleheads would also like to get their chance."

Those must be potemkin consumers pushing 2017 3rd quarter GDP to 3.3%. An impossibility according to our "betters", but there it is.

Kyzernick said...

TTR apparently has no clue that the financial crisis of 2007-08 was rooted in Democrat Party policies.

The only thing you can fault Bush for is not pushing hard enough to UNDO those policies. Go on YouTube and you'll find dozens of videos showing Democrats defending the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, denying any crisis was looming, and Republicans actually asking hard questions but getting stonewalled. All from 2005 and 2006. Imagine that.

Ralph L said...

how cheaply furnished government offices are
Not for the top dogs.

why our politics has gotten so over-inflated and dramatic
Because we the people have become so. The British led the way by letting their lips flap absurdly over Diana's smash up.