←back to thread

105 points mgh2 | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.799s | source
1. yieldcrv ◴[] No.42211980[source]
If I was a betting man, which I am, I wouldnt draw attention to myself if I was the CFPB
replies(2): >>42212207 #>>42212209 #
2. bell-cot ◴[] No.42212207[source]
Perhaps. OTOH, I've seen a number of stories about some Republican politicians noticing that they're now the party of the "ordinary working people", and trying to play that part.
replies(1): >>42215166 #
3. HeatrayEnjoyer ◴[] No.42212209[source]
Do you mean Apple? Your comment is unclear as-is.
replies(1): >>42212256 #
4. yieldcrv ◴[] No.42212256[source]
The CFPB shouldn’t expand regulatory oversight of a large player that doesn’t want additional regulatory oversight

because this is an unfavorable political environment for the CFPB’s continued existence

unilaterally covering someone that could challenge the authority just accelerates the outcome

5. yieldcrv ◴[] No.42215166[source]
Good point, I don’t really see it. Appointment confirmed by the Senate can do whatever they want, and I don’t see Congress voting as any less than a full party bloc given the razer thin majorities and inability to pass the filibuster