Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProgressiveEconomist

(5,818 posts)
37. YES, only the biggest losers from
Sun Jan 8, 2012, 08:12 AM
Jan 2012

impending rulings by Cordray would have the "standing" and the financial damages necessary to sue. But are they daring enough to expose their outrageous consumer fraud in detail as they would have to in any lawsuit?

We had a good discussion of this point in a recent GD thread (at http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002121504 ):

"IMO, the biggest losers from today's recess appointment to the CFPB are payday lenders who charge poor suckers an average of 400 percent interest on typical loans. Right now, the Feds cannot regulate these loan-sharks. Recent research by respected economists (see the Slate.com story at http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2009/07/400_percent_apr_is_that_good.single.html ) found that strong disclosure rules would depress the payday loan business by 10 percent. Rules that capped interest rates at, say, 36 percent, would virtually put payday lenders out of business.

IMO, the more daylight that is shone on the payday lending business, the more and more severe will be restrictions imposed on it. Already, Ohio state legislation and the Military Personnel Act have capped payday lenders' APRs at 28 percent and 36 percent, respectively.

Dozens of other states well might follow Ohio's example should the payday lenders' association sue to deligitimize Cordray's appointment. Payday lenders would have to show in court the numerical extent of their losses due to regulation of their storefront loan-sharking. Just imagine the bad press a lawsuit by the payday lenders' association would generate for the Rs. 'Republican obstruction of the CFPB generated $X million in payday lender profits.' 'Republican Senators S and B (I did not choose these initials randomly) received more than $Z in campaign cash from payday lenders.'

Any payday-lender victory in court on the appointment front would IMO be a Pyrrhic one. A payday lenders' suit over the CFPB appointment would be like the roaches themselves turning on the lights in a filthy kitchen! A no-nonsense cleanup would ensue, and the exterminator would be called!"

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

No wonder Americans no longer respect Republicons SpiralHawk Jan 2012 #1
I wonder how Jonathan Turley will interpret this....n/t monmouth Jan 2012 #2
Turdley will be anti-Obama as usual. MjolnirTime Jan 2012 #34
There's actually a really good fox news article on this. AtheistCrusader Jan 2012 #3
I agree. Surprisingly informative. bloomington-lib Jan 2012 #23
What a bunch of putzes. geardaddy Jan 2012 #4
Why would anyone sane vote for, let alone support anyone the Republican Party has put up for RC Jan 2012 #5
The pro forma session should be considered a recess anyway treestar Jan 2012 #6
The number of recess appointments made by Clinton, Bush, & Obama... pacalo Jan 2012 #7
The only sane response to Yertle's bleat gratuitous Jan 2012 #10
How could they seriously present this to a court when they could have voiced pacalo Jan 2012 #13
The BLATANT racism makes me sick... Moostache Jan 2012 #27
If this gets into the court system The Genealogist Jan 2012 #8
This after the John Bolton appointment by Bush. NYC Liberal Jan 2012 #9
Wow. They are playing right into Obama's hands. lol. Good luck with that. Idiots. n/t deacon Jan 2012 #11
Check out DU's homepage, Pic of the Moment... pinto Jan 2012 #12
public attention span maddiemom Jan 2012 #14
How many recess appointments did Bush have? B Calm Jan 2012 #15
Your wish is granted!! JoePhilly Jan 2012 #16
GOOD info. You should post on some Corporate Media sites just to stick their noses in it and Bill USA Jan 2012 #26
Thank you Joe!! B Calm Jan 2012 #35
They're against it if anyone else does it. Anything they do is OK. tclambert Jan 2012 #17
WAAAAAAAAAAAAA ! penndragon69 Jan 2012 #18
The lawsuit is not frivolous badtoworse Jan 2012 #19
You have a point... KansDem Jan 2012 #20
The Republicans will NOT challenge the appointment in court, BECAUSE Tx4obama Jan 2012 #21
What a bunch of hypocritical assholes. gtar100 Jan 2012 #22
Repubugnuts are TOXIC WASTE. JohnWxy Jan 2012 #24
MUST PROTECT THOSE LOAN SHARKS AND BANKSTERS WHO CAN 'POLICE THEMSELVES'! Bill USA Jan 2012 #25
Jon Stewart's break down on this is the best thing I've seen covering this. SleeplessinSoCal Jan 2012 #28
WTF?Wait a minute...didn't chimpy mcflightsuit seat a few of his troop using Ecumenist Jan 2012 #29
To the Republicans: Botany Jan 2012 #30
kick stlsaxman Jan 2012 #31
Several more reasons why America is in such sad shape. Hubert Flottz Jan 2012 #32
Good luck with that chumps. You don't have standing to sue. yellowcanine Jan 2012 #33
YES, only the biggest losers from ProgressiveEconomist Jan 2012 #37
Limbaugh and Recess Appointments malaise Jan 2012 #36
They are walking right into Obama's trap. Obama WINS BIGTIME on this ISSUE. RBInMaine Jan 2012 #38
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The "Party of No Fri...»Reply #37